W Stands For What The Fuck?

In a move moving the US one more step closer to becoming a fascist dictatorship, George Bush declared that he can edit security reports about whether Homeland Security is obeying privacy rules. Once again exhibiting his predilection for crapping on the Constitution, he claimed this power in another signing statement to a bill passed by Congress stating that no-one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints. He claimed this under his power as the unitary executive, a position not outlined by the Constitution, but hey, to him it's just a Goddamned piece of paper anyway.
Bush also issued other signing statements in the Homeland Security spending bill, none of them maing much sense, least of all his disregard for a rquirement that the FEMA director have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."
And Bush's logic (or lack thereof)? It "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office." In other words, more political hacks he needs to appoint to a position because of favors owed to them by the current administration. Only a truly brainwashed television-watchin' Republican could understand why a law requiring a person to be qualified and knowledgeable would rule out a large portion of those qualified by experience and knowledge, but I can't understand why Bush has any support at all as he slowly descends the nation into a fascist regime.
And if you really extend Bush's logic, driver's licenses that require a driver to be qualified by experience and logic are ruling out a large portion of those people who want to drive cars. Or, states that require a doctor to be licensed as experienced and knowledgeable are stopping a lot of people from entering the medical field.
So if the Foley scandal hasn't already rendered this Congress to be irrelevant, then Bush's signing statements sure have.

It's All A Plot By The Democrats.....

...and Mark Foley is concerned with catching sexual predators! Even though The aide that convinced Foley to quit claims he told Dennis Hastert about it three years ago, the Democrats waited until right before the election to leak this. I saw Newt on CNN imply that this was leaked by a Democrat, although he offered no evidence, his implications enough to grab the attention of the corporate media. Well, if this story was leaked, that would infer that someone else was covering it up, wouldn't it? Lucky for Newt, your average television-watcher lacks the capacity to reason as much.
And the Reublicans are all ready for an investigation, only it's not the one that should be held. They want to find out why this story surfaced on the last day of the legislative business before the November election. Not why Fatturd's office sat on this story for three years, then denied any knowledge when the story broke. So if the Justice Department does investigate this, which investigation do you think El-Turdo will hold?

And by now, we've all seen the screen capture of Foley being indentified as a Democrat on Fox News fair and balanced Bill O'Reilly liefest. When all else fails, you can always count on the corporate media to disinform the television-watchers. Is it any wonder so many Americans still think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
What this is all about is people placing party politics first. Already struggling supporting an unpopular president and an unpopular war, not to mention spending the first part of the year embroiled in a lobbying scandal, Republican leadershits have proved that nothing is as important as their party (unless it's the party they're planning for the end of the war in Iraq)and will sacrifice anything or anyone to keep their majority.So it's only natural they'd blame the Democrats for leaking the story, it's what they would have done if the shoe was on the other foot.

Spoiling The October Surprises

Karl Rove promised to deliver George W. Bush and the Republican party an October surprise. Something that will help turn the party's sagging ratings around and help them retain the majority that they need in order to continue their plan of converting the US into a fascist corporatocracy. Many people have speculated on what this may be, I thought I'd take a second and speculate on what it won't be.
War With Iran
Right now the propaganda campaign is amping up for a US military strike against Iran. However, there is still some diplomacy being tried on the part of the EU, only because Bush is no statesman and Cheney doesn't believe in diplomacy. However, while I think an invasion will occur, I believe this won't happen until after the election. Here's why:
Right now, oil prices have begun to lower. There are many reasons and theories for this oocurance. One is the discovery of a huge oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Another is the eased tensions in the Middle east due to Iran's desire to negotiate it's nuclear power ambitions. Another theory is that the oil companies have lowered the price of oil to help out their buddy in the White House.
However, the theory that I think fits best was postulated by Kunstler (September 18) in which he speculates that orders are down because Third World countries can't afford gas at $70 a barrel, therefore, they're not placing any orders. Also, the nation's largest consumer of oil, the US military may have stocked up on oil and has stopped placing orders as well. If they were planning on attacking Iran, they would need a lot of jet fuel as they seem to think they can win a ground war from the air, and would continue placing orders. A strike against Iran before the election would drive oil prices up again, thereby angering the US voters who are grateful to be paying over two dollars a gallon right now. Therefore, a strike against Iran as the October surp[rise, in my opinion, is out of the question.
Osama Bin Laden
Prior to the leaked intelligence out of France,Osama was suddenly on Bush's mind again. He even met with the president of Pakistan, where Osama was rumored to be holed up. Right here on this page, I speculated that the capture of Osama would be Rove's promised October surprise. But the cat's out of the bag now. While no one could prove he's dead, nobody could prove he wasn't either. The leak got a lot of people to question why Osama only turns up on tape when it serves the White House's agenda. A tape now would cause people to doubt it's authenticity, especially an audio tape alone, while Osama's "capture", undoubtedly dead, would give creedence to the rumors and have people (like me)say I told you so.
Another Terrorist Attack
Foiled or not foiled, another terrorist attack would prove to the people who are paying fucking attention that the NIE was right, and the Bush way of dealing with terrorism isn't working. There's not many more things that airline passengers can give up now short of flying naked, and we've all had a laugh at that. Another successful terrorist attack would prove that torture doesn't help, and that as much as they like to bluster about, the Bush regime cannot keep us as safe as the television-watchers have been led to believe. There is only one way that Bush could use another terrorist attack to his advantage.
In recent days, the Republicans have taken major hits. The Mark Foley scandal shows the voters that the people who claim to protect us from sexual predators are in actuality, the people we need to be protected from. The fact that party leaders sat on this information hasn't helped them out, especially if the corporate media has a field day with this, and cover-ups involving sexual improprieties is where they excel the most as far as exploiting. Nothing keeps the television-watchers tuned in like a good sex scandal and this one has all the details they need.
The lobbying scandals have caused some key Republicans to scurry off the map, campaign war chests in tow, which have now been converted into legal defense funds. All one has to do is remind the voters that the Republicans gained control of the legislature by running against the corruption in Washington, just don't expect it to come form the lapdog corporate media, because while they love a tawdry sex scandal, this type of scandal causes the television-watchers to switch the channel. So what's a war criminal to do when he loses his rubberstamp? It's almost as if he'd be better off if there were no elections at all.
Which is not that far-fetched. Powers granted to Bush via the PATRIOT Act include imposing martial law in case of an epidemic. Also, as Commander-in-Chief, Bush could suspend all elections. Congress just gave him the power to declare anyone, even American citizens, enemy combatants and the detention camps are being built. Is this the October surprise? I don't think so, although Bush's warning to citizens not to buy in to "the enemy's propaganda" concerning the NIE ( who is the enemy? The CIA?)sure gives one pause. All I know is what it won't be, so I guess we'll have to just wait and see.

But Who Will Protect Us From Them?

The Republicans like to tout there position on national security. It's their one strong point and they've used it to their advantage at every oppurtunity. But the truth is, beneath their glossy veneer, they're not really protecting the citizens at all.
The NIE that was leaked last week is one example. While Bush has been claiming the war in Iraq was protecting us from terrorists the truth is that it has been creating more terrorists. Which hs been good at protecting the security of defense contractors growing fat at the public tit, it hasn't protected our tax dollars that could be better spent here at home.
Another example is the rider attached to a bill passed by the Republicans exempting pharmaceuticals from lawsuits brought on by parents whose children developed autism from the mercury in childhood vaccines. They protect the corporations, at the expense of parents and children nationwide. It certainly seems that the Republicans are good at protecting their own.
The torture bill passed this week by Congress shows how far they will go to protect their President. Never mind that a post de facto law is unconstitutional, the actions of the president were unconstitutional as well, thereby justifying two wrongs making some twisted right. And written into that bill was a provision that the President could declare anyone who opposes him an "enemy combatant". Do you feel any safer knowing that this won't be abused by a so-called person who doesn't ever put your best interests up front?
When Hurricane Katrina hit last year, even though they received an advance warning that it would be the catastrophe it was, did the Bush regime make any effort to protect the people? Even when the Superdome was filled with dying people with no water and no hope, nothing was done to help these people.
But the icing on the cake has to be the recent revelation that Rep. Mark Foley was a sexual predator, which was revealed to Republican leadership months ago, and they chose not to do anything about it until it became public knowledge.

So here's one of their own, preying on teenage boys, and what does Hastert do? Does he act in the best public interest and do something about it? How about Boehner? Can't do anything against the party, in effect placing the party before the American people. I don't think we need them to protect us, what we need is someone who will protect us from these sleazebags.

DeVos: Christianazi In Business Suit

Dick DeVos' campaign took a tumble the other day when he showed his true colors. When asked about creationism, intelligent design, or any other label you want to put on the Christianazis attempt to put their narrow minded religious views into other people's children minds, DeVos stated he wants to put this scientific adbomination into school's cirriculum. Is that why he has stated that if elected, he'll accept no salary?
DeVos has always been about tax dollars going to create a theocracy. That's the whole purpose of his voucher plan, taking money from public schools and putting it into parochial schools. And the odds are pretty even that if elected, he'll try to get that plan back into action again, after being resoundingly rejected by the voters of this state before.
The thing is, we all benefit from having better public schools. Better educated people make for better citizens. Unfortunately, they also are more inclined to oppose DeVos' anti-abortion homophobic platform, which is why he wishes to replace studied reason with fairy tales.
DeVos is a fundie, a Christian Reformed person, and having lived around them my whole life, the Christian Deformed are the most reactionary of all Christianazis. To put their ideology in simple terms: you're all going to Hell.
DeVos has also recently started running ads featuring Lee Iacocca to appeal to the television-watchers. Lee Ioacocca is a wealthy man, so of course he'd want to have a man who supports outsourcing and tax cuts in the governor's mansion. Except that DeVos has said he won't live in the governor's mansion. Apparently, it's a step down for him.

How Much Does One Of These NIE Cost Me Personally?

"Either we're going to be fighting this battle, this war, overseas or its going to be right here in this country," said Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader.

Riiight. You'd have to be an idiot to believe that statement, especially following the release of the National Intelligence Estimate saying the war in Iraq has increased, not diminished, the terrorist threat to the US. Who are you going to believe, intelligence professionals or some guy who wants to hang onto his position as Senate Majority Leader? Personally, I'm going with the intelligence experts, not some guy playing to the television-watchers.
Remember why we went in Iraq? After all the lies had been stripped away, all they had left was Saddam was a bad guy who tortured his people. Well, now it seems that torture in Iraq is worse than under Saddam. Of course, not all of it is coming from the US occupation forces, but the fact that any of it is should leave decent Americans cold.
Today alone 14 people were killed in Iraq as the sectarian violence there continues to spread. And that violence would spread with or without American occupation, as there seems to be little US forces can do to stop the country's sectarian violence from becoming a "civil" war, if it hasn't already. So tell me again how we're saving the country?

``Now I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you do know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one- seventh as important as Iraq.''

-Bill Clinton

That's right, Bill. We have only 21,000 troops in Afghanistan, fighting the remnants of the Taleban and al Qaeda there. You know, the people we claimed were responsible for the horrendous attacks of 9/11 that started the so-called war on terror. Most of our troops were pulled from there to be used in Iraq, and what was I just saying about Iraq?
My theory is of course that Bush needs the threat of terrorism to exist and increase because he can use this to gut the Constitution. There's very little of the Bill of Rights that haven't been compromised in the name of "national security" by this administration, and they have two more years to go. They can be hindered if the people wise up and deliver a Democratic majority in November. With all the recent bad news for the ADDministration, there going to have to work really hard on that "October surprise" Rove has promised to deliver, I just hope it's not another war.
Because you see, anothe NIE that was issued last year said Iran is years from having a nuclear weapons program. And that's another report the Bush regime is sure to ignore.

Osama Dead (Again)

In a bid to possibly spoil Karl Rove's October surprise, a French newspaper has reported Osama Bin Laden is dead. This wouldn't be the first time Osama has been reported to have been demised, but the first time western sources have reported it. So much for finding him alive.
According to usually reliable sources in Saudi police forces, Osama died in Pakistan on August 23 of typhoid fever. Pakistani authorities do not have any information about Osama's death, but are relieved now that the US forces looking for him (I think there are about eleven) won't be bombing their country "back to the stone age" (in the word's of Dick Armitage) in their effort to locate him.
The CIA could not confirm the report, and the Washington-based IntelCenter was not aware of any reports on the internet. So unless Osama appears, Twain-like, on videotape to announce that rumors of his death are wrong, if he were to die he'd be the last one to know about it, I'm going to assume he has passed.
This also brings a question into my mind, is this the reason for Bush's sudden interest in Pakistan's Musharraf? Were they holding Osama on ice in Pakistan until right before the elections so he could be "captured" by US forces working in tandem with Pakistani forces? Wasn't it shortly after August 23 that Bush suddenly refocused his campaign on Osama?
The Fench are launching an investigation into how this intelligence was leaked, suggesting that it was being sat on until a) it was confirmed or b)after it was used by the Bush regime as an October surprise (hey! forget all about the war in Iraq and all the torture and spying voters! We got Osama!)to retain their grip on the legislature. (I'm voting on the latter, it's been nearly a month. How long does it take to confirm a dead guy is dead. Must be a fuck of an autopsy)Perhaps they were trying to smuggle him into Iraq, or Iran, in an attempt to justify one war or trhe other in those two countries.

Terrorizing The Television-Watchers

If you ever needed evidence that the US has become a nation of television-watchers, this past Tuesday morning was a good example. Morning radio shows all talked about the memorial service for Steve Irwin, a television conservationist who died confronting an animal best left alone. Everyone marveled at the speech given by his daughter. Everyone talked about what a hero he was. Except, he wasn't.
A couple times a week, America buries it's true heroes. They don't get tributes from morning radio shows, and dignitaries and celebrities don't turn out to honor them or pay them respects. The cries of their children, their spouses, their parents aren't glamorized by glib personalities. These heroes, too, died confronting something that was best left alone. There is no thank you for giving your life from those who have benefitted the most from their sacrifice. And because these people aren't beamed into our living rooms, spouting catchphrases and mugging for the media as they molest and maul mammals, the television-watchers don't care.
Oh sure, they'll slap a magnetic ribbon on the vehicle and think they've done their part, but the families who have lost a member don't get anything from that. Some cash-craving capitalists pockets the change and gets a tax-cut to boot. Because that's all they want-a tax cut. That and the freedom to exploit the paranoia of the television watcher nation.
This November, the citizens of this country face one of the most important elections since the last one. They have a chance to vote for change that will end the sacrifices made by our heroes for a cause that has turned out to be unjust. They will have the oppurtunity to prevent more heroes needlessly wasted to fill an agenda that serves only those at the top, who have not had to sacrifice a thing.
The tyrants in power know how to manipulate the television-watchers. They know they cannot run on their economic policies, which have created record trade deficits. They have created record budget deficits. They have allowed more and more of our jobs to be siphoned off, so they can enjoy more money, and then refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of these actions. Record foreclosures. Slowing job growths. Slowing construction starts. Lay-offs. Can't take that path.
And they cannot run on their social agenda. Poison the environment. Legalize discrimination and intolerance. Establishing a theocracy to rival those in the Middle East.
So they're back to the one card in the deck they know how to play. National security. The first step, create a problem where no problem existed before. Last time, it was Iraq. Nobody liked Saddam anyway, so no-one would squeak if we took him out. Now our eyes are on another country. Our president tried to convince the world that we needed to stop them. Before they acquired the means to stand up to our agression. Every violation of the constitution is justified for "reasons of national security".
And how are they able to achieve this? The talking heads tell the televison-watchers topics to think about. Glenn Beck says Iran is up to something. Bill O'Reilly says waterboarding is safe and reliable. Free speech is bad, strip searches are good. As long as the television-watchers are terrified, they can do as they please.

October Surprise?

President Bush went to the UN today to press for the case for war, er, I mean sanctions against Iran for it's nuclear program. Sanctions are highly unlikely as Russia, China, and now, even France oppose them. Look for french fries to become freedom fries again in the not-too-distant future. The UN will once become irrelevant and Bush will push ahead with the PNAC plan to rebuild the middle east.
Bush needs all this to hapen before October, so he can use the flag waving American propaganda machine the keep his rubberstamp Congress and hoping that the television-watchers will give it to him. Then, he can relax, as he knows once he keeps his congress, he can persuade them to protect his ass from any danger of impeachment for any number of crimes he has committed, and possibly save him from being tried as the war criminal he is.
Before that can happen, he needs a terrorist attack, and what do you know, he gets one. Or at least the threat of one. That's all it takes for the television-watchers' paranoia to kick in and he can violate any law there is, as long as he justifies it by using national security and invoking 9/11, although that last one is just about used up.
Bush' speech will draw distinctions between countries that want peace, such as most of the countries in the region, and those extremists who want to spread terror and violence, such as the US and Israel.

"The world must stand up for peace."

They do, Mr. President. That's why they won't stand for you.

Cheney and Hoekstra Chop Up IAEA Report On Iran

Is Ahmednejhad up to something? Glenn Beck thinks so, our at least he wants you to think so, because he wants you to join the 77% of Americans who think he is up to something. And of course, he is up to something, just not anything against the law. Not that Glenn Beck is violation of any rule of law either, since it is not against the law to deliberately distort the news. (It is interesting to note that this case was decided in favor of Fox News, who then took the ball and ran with it.) Of course, Glenn Beck is nothing close to be a journalist, he's more of a professional fear mongering propagandist for television watchers, those people who like their news chewed up and spit out in nice tidy sixty second sound bites because it's so much easier than reading.
One can't fault Mr. Beck, for even though he works for a news agency, he does nothing close to what a journalist would do. A journalist would have reported that the IAEA says US report on Iran is 'outrageous'. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN's nuclear watchdog sent a letter to Pete Hoekstra, claiming the report distorts the findings of the IAEA, which means after his distinguished career in Congress, Mr. Hoekstra can go work for Fox News.
The congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" an inspector was removed for having not stuck to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran, said the letter. Diplomats say the inspector, who was allegedly removed for stating that Iran intends on making nuclear weapons, is still the IAEA Iran section head.
Although the IAEA has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons. Building a nuclear power plant is not a violation of the NPT, which Iran has signed.
Nonetheless, Iran is considering suspending it's nuclear enrichment program to allow for formal negotiations with the EU. The US, however, has refused to join any negotiations, and is pressing for sanctions in the Security Council for it's failure to comply with the August 31 deadline set by the SC for suspension of it's enrichment activities. Sanctions that are sure to be blocked by Russia and China, which has deals with Iran, and Germany is having reservations as well. The EU is reluctant to pursue any actions that could lead to the use of force, as they still are feeling the sting of the last time they bought into the Bush regimes lies, last time concerning Iraq's WMD.
Iran has in the past mentioned security assurances in exchange for talks on it's nuclear program, something the Bush regime has steadfastly refused to agree to. Bombing Iran is part of the neocon agenda for reshaping the Middle East, and the US is under considerable increasing pressure to bomb Iran from neocon supporters.

Exploiting A Tragedy

The way a person responds to a tragedy is a measure of their character. Some people react with true compassion, some with anger, and some use that tragedy to set forth their own agendas.
In the days following 9/11, a group of rock musicians got together and put on The Concert For The Americas, to raise money for the Red Cross. True, a lot of the money was sucked up by administrative costs, but the move was a genuine effort to rally the people together positively.
And how did the right react?
Christianazi religious terrorist Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell told their flock that God allowed this to happen because America had accepted the gay lifestyle. They couldn't come out and say that God is powerless to stop the actions of men, or that there is no God favoring any country, so they took the route that reinforced their political agenda, and exploited for their own gain. No compassion there.
The corporate terrorist media, always looking for a way to pump fear into the television watchers, exploited the terror to keep people tuned in for late breaking stories to boost their ratings. Higher ratings means bigger advertising revenues.
Neofascist neocons in the Bush administration like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, used the tragedy to start wars with countries that had nothing to do with the tragedy. However, replacing regimes in those countries were part of their agenda before the attacks, they just exploited them for their own gain.
Others in the Bush administration exploited the tragedy to pass laws that took civil liberties away from the citizens they swore to protect. Others, working in concert with the corporate media exploited the tragedy for political gain, to retain their party's hold on the legislative branches of the government.
The president himself benefitted form the tragedy himself, which boosted his sagging approval ratings to the highest of any sitting president. he has since then, at any given oppurtunity, invoked the tragedy to justify every constitutional violation, exploiting it at every turn.
The fifth anniversary of the tragedy was Monday night, and there was Bush, his numbers in the dumpster, his rubber stamp congress in danger of being lost, the support for a war that had nothing to with the attacks dwindling.
He attempted once again to exploit the fear:

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone,"

He attempted to exploit the alleged perpetrator:

"If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden," Bush said, "our enemies will be emboldened, they will gain a new safe haven, and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement."

He exploited people's ignorance:

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.

It is the last quote that is the most weak. Saddam was no threat to anybody, outside of his own country. Sanctions imposed on him following the first Gulf War had left the whole country weakened. Which is why those who exploited 9/11 for an invasion thought it would be an easy battle.
What is lacking, in all the right wing responses, is a sense of compassion. Rather than using this tragedy as an oppurtunity to examine the root causes of terrorism, and how to address them, they attempted to root out terrorism by becoming like the terrorists themselves. And that is the real tragedy.

Computer Issues

The people who write and unleash computer viruses are the same as terrorists in my book. Nothing more annoying as when you're banging oout a post and your screen freezes. It's bad enough when it's blogger's fault, but when some idiot hacker thinks it's his(or her)business to point out flaws in operating systems, they deserve to be shot. Computers are expensive pieces of machinery that cost money to repair, so it's as if they are stealing from me. We all should be able to surf the net with out dealing with someone's perverted sense of righteousness gumming up our tubes!
So I propose that instead of cracking down on internet pornography, the government start going after the hackers who cost us untold amounts of dollars in lost data a year. We should be secure in our homes from people who inflict this type of crap on others. I'd feel better and safer if the government went after them, rather than some Iraqi civilian who was no threat to me at all. Death to the cryptofascist cyberterrorists!

The Real Path to 9/11: Inside Job or Republican Incompetence?

As the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy approaches, there has been a concerted effort in the corporate media, mostly television and radio, to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. They mainly have been using these two media outlets because television watchers are the people most unable to think clearly and therefore unable to form an independent conclusion on their own.
Accoring to a Zogby poll, 46% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. How did they reach that conclusion? Bush himself said there was no links in September of 2003, and Cheney blamed it on the media, two years ago. So why do these notions still persist?
What's more, where did these notions originate? Could it have been from The White House itself?
The effort to discredit the 9/11 truth movement in the corporate media is an attempt to again force notions on people without actually prepondering the evidence.The two main theories Let It Happen On Purpose(LIHOP) and Made It Happen On Purpose(MIHOP) are dismissed as crazy "tinfoil hat" conspiracies (as opposed to the racist "official" conspiracy theory), but never address some of the issues raised by the movement.
First piece of evidence (which falls into the MIHOP category) is the presense of explosions caused by bombs being placed in the towers that caused them to collapse like a controlled demolition into their own footprint. Moreover, they point to the collapse of WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane, as evidence that explosives were used on September 11. As Steven Jones ( a physics professor) says:

As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.

Professor Jones has also said this was the only evidence in history, before or after, of fire bringing down a steel framed building.
Another incident that fits both the LIHOP and MIHOP scenarios is the death of Payne Stewart in his Lear Jet, which had depressurized shortly after take-off in Florida and was shortly intercepted by fighter jets when the cockpit was "unresponsive". Standard operational procedure of NORAD is to send planes to intercept a flight when it goes off course (which is filed before take-off). Yet this was not followed on 9/11, which would have prevented any planes from hitting the towers and the Pentagon. This leads to the theory that someone had issued a "stand down" order on that day. Now consider the testimony of Norman Mineta, Former Transportation Secretary for the Bush administration, to the official 9/11 Commission:

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

The MIHOP theory claims that 9/11 was a "false flag" operation, that is, an intelligence operation carried out by one group to be blamed on another. They point to the Project For a New American Century's "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which called for reshaping the Middle East to better fit corporate America's interests. In order to catalyze the support they would need to start their aganda, a "New Pearl Harbor" would be needed to rally the American people behind the agenda. MIHOP supporters point to the fact that 7 of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were still alive after 9/11, (as well as evidence no Arabs were found on the autopsy list) that 9/11 was a false flag operation designed to frame Arabs in order to enable the Bush administration (most of them signees on the PNAC) to start their agenda. As former MI5 agent David Shayler stated last year, in his opinion 9/11 was an inside meant to " bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria." Guess which countries the Bush administration is starting the propaganda campaign for invasion of next?
Of course, another conclusion could be that the US government under the Bush/Republican regime has become so incompetent that it can't function at all. The failures in Afghanistan and Iraq certainly point to that, as well as their botched handling of a response to Hurricane Katrina. It does appeal to those of a partisan stripe who feel that these pathetic bunglers aren't capable of pulling off such a complex scheme (neglecting, of course, their capability of pulling off two election frauds).
Another example of incompetence or complicity is the actions of the Secret Service on September 11. With an airport four miles away, untold numbers of hijacked planes in the sky that day, Bush's location at the time being made known days in advance, the secret service allowed the number one terrorist target to sit in plain sight, surrounded by children, instead of immediately whisking him away to safety. But they didn't. Was it merely incompetence, or did they know that Bush was not a target (MIHOP)?
And yet, the only defnse that people can muster up against such theories is the insanity defense. You know, you must be wearing a tinfoil hat to believe the government would lie to us and kill their own people. The same government that deliberately manipulated intelligence to start a war in Iraq causing the deaths of over 12,000 soldiers (who, the last time I checked were people too)and gave defense contractors, construction companies, and oil companies billions of dollars in no-bid contracts. It's an old ploy, when you can't refute the evidence you must therefore attack the ones presenting it.
And what of Osama? You know, the one that Bush blames for the attacks, even though it's not on his official FBI 'rap sheet'? The guy who turns up on audio and video tapes almost conveniently timed to benefit the agenda of the Bush administration? The one Bush claimed we had no idea where he was or how to capture him, without carpet bombing Afghanistan? He recently turned up again on another videotape just as the GOP needed him for their fall election strategy, which is based on selling fear to the masses.
It's the fear that got the PATRIOT Act passed. It's the fear that keeps people from questioning the actions of the Bush administration lest they be bundled with the 'terrorists'.
When a crime is committed, the usual investigative techniques involve finding out who committed the crime by determining who benefitted the most from it. Did alQaeda, whose goal is to remove the American infidel presence from their lands, as well as having Israel leave Palestine, benefit? Not really, as the attacks brought more US troops to the Middle east. The PNAC benefitted by having their agenda of "creating a new Middle east" advanced. Israel benefitted because, in the words of Binyamin Netanyahu on 9/11:

"It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

allowing them to build a "security" wall through Palestinian territory, as well as perpetuate collective punishment against the Palestinian people without much outcry from the US. Defense contractors, Halliburton, they certainly benefitted.
So excuse me if I think the government at least LIHOP, if not MIHOP. I've looked at all the evidence, too much to go into here, and reached my conclusion. You can think I wear a tin foil hat if you wish. But I hope you don't mind if I call you an anal ostrich. You know, hiding your head up your ass in fear of the truth.

No Shit!

Well, it's only taken the Senate three and a half years to reach the conclusion most of us knew already. There was no link between Saddam and alQaeda. The mind boggles at the amount of time and money (all courtesy of you and me, the US tax payer)wasted on this conclusion that any one of my two faithful readers could have told you. This pretty much makes every piece of shit excuse hurled at the television screen in hopes it would stick by those assholes in the Bush administration to start an unnecessary war a blatant lie.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow belittled the reports as "nothing new", in other words, yes even when he was a "journalist" (well, as close as you can be when you work for Fox) regurgitating these lies who knew they were in fact lies. Gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that you can be deceived with impunity by the people sucking them dollars out of your pocket, doesn't it?

The Letter The Grand Rapids Press Will Not Print

The other night, I decided it was time to send a letter to the local paper. With Michigan's gubernatorial election in November, I thought I would way in with why the Republican candidate, Dick DeVos, would not make a good leader for our state. I ahd sent this letter in under my pseudonym, as I have been effectively banned from having my letters published in the paper under my real name.
This all stems from a letter I had sent to the Press in December 2002. I was responding to an article in which Karl Rove compared to Bush to Abraham Lincoln. I had suggested this was odd, as the rest of the world compares Bush to Hitler.
The press has a policy of only publishging your letters every 90 days. But I had found a way around this by sending letters from my (then) wife's email address under her name. I did this with her consent, as she understood, I was opposed to the upcoming war with Iraq (we were in the propaganda stages at that time, just like we are now with Iran) as part of the neocon plan for endless war, as I have two children who I do not want to grow up and kill and/or die for a pointless war.
As it was, there was another woman in town who had the same name as my wife's. She wrote the paper and asked how could they dare print a letter like that and sign her name to it. That's when my wife spilled the beans to the editor that I had in fact written the letter, and I effectively became banned. Later on, we split up, (for other reasons), and I had a new address and phone number (prerequisites for getting your letter published), so I created an email account for one Lew Scannon, and was able to have two letters published under that pseudonym in the paper.
Now, however I have since moved again, and while I am using a different ISP, my email is similar to my old one, and it's the only account I have, so I sent the following letter to them yesterday. But I think my browser uses my real name in emails, so the letter will not be published. Not because it's bad (although, I will admit, it's not my best, and I've read many worse), but because the editor recognized me as the banned person from almost four years ago.
So here it is:

Michigan's economy is in the toilet. People like Dick DeVos blame Gov. Granholm for our state's current economic woes and say we need leadership to get us out of this.
Let's look at DeVos's leadership. In the last decade, he shipped 1400 jobs out of Michigan, as well as millions of investment dollars into Communist China, while at the time, Michigan was under a Republican governor. If every other manufacturer followed DeVos's lead, there'd be nothing left of our great state.
If DeVos had faith in Michigan, not only would 1400 jobs still be here, but investing the money in Michigan and not China would have created more jobs. 1400 more people could have bought cars, bought homes, or could have afforded newspaper subscriptions. Because those jobs are now gone, 1400 orders for new cars were never made. Because new car orders fell, autoworkers had to be laid off. Many parts manufacturers throughout the state that supply for both the cars and the machines that help build them had to lay people off.
Many other businesses who did follow DeVos's lead also shipped jobs to China.Now, the country is beginning to see the results. Automakers shutting plants. Housing markets starting to slow. Trade deficits are up. The new service jobs created do not pay enough to drive the economy, nor do they create enough goods to close the trade gap.
DeVos likes to blame Jennifer Granholm for a lack of leadership, but part of being a leader includes taking responsibility for your actions. A leader is willing to make sacrifices, unfortunately, under DeVos, once again it will be the working people of Michigan who will be asked to make that sacrifice.

Since the banning, I have discovered blogging, which I feel more rewarding, as I can post what I wish without having it edited or altered(unlike a letter I had published in the Washington Times) and reach people from around the country, not just West Michigan. But I will on occasion get a call from the subscription department of the Grand Rapids Press, asking me if I would like to suscribe. And I say:
"Why would I want to subscribe to a newspaper that attempts to censor me by banning me from the editorial page and whose politics are contrary to mine? Go peddle your papers somewhere else."
If it's just propaganda, shouldn't they be giving it away?

In Order For Diplomacy To Work, You Actually Have To Use It

Kathy at Stone Soup Musings posted a link to Lie By Lie:Chronicle of a war foretold over at Mother Jones that lists every lie told by the Bush administration about Iraq, as well as every contrary piece of intelligence that turned out to be the truth.It's a fascinating database that shows that although the Bush administration said they were doing everything to avoid war with Iraq, they were actually doing everything in their power to take us to war with Iraq.
History repeats itself.
In an interview with CNN, UN Ambassador John Bolton said,"We’re exercising a lot of diplomatic activity to try and resolve this peacefully." Of course the Bush administration has refused to meet or negotiate with anyone from Teheran to try to resolve this, so how they think they are using diplomacy is beyond me.
On March 3, 2003, George Bush said,"We are doing everything we can to avoid war with Iraq."
Weapons inspectors in Iran found no evidence Iran has a weapons program. On January 9, 2003, Hans Blix appeared before the UN, and stated the same thing.
To those who think the Bush regime won't start another war, Bolton said,"No President charged with defending the American people takes the military option off the table."
To those who think our forces are stretched too thin now, there is a draft resolution in committee right now. But there are others who feel we can take Iran with out putting a single "boot on the ground".
Part of this summer's war in Lebanon was an effort to disarm Hizb-Ullah, so it can not retaliate against Israel when the nukes are dropped. The destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure was to prevent the Iranians from using Lebanon as a place to launch military initiatives against Israel when Iran is nuked. The rhetoric is amping up,and it's not a matter of if, but of when.
Iran has repeatedly offered to suspend it's uranium enrichment in exchange for security guarantees, guarantees the US will not take military action against it, guarantees the US will not give. So this war is not about Iran's nuclear ambitions at all, any more than the war in Iraq was about 9/11 or WMD. It's all about the neofascist plan for a new American century, and it doesn't matter how many Americans oppose it, the Bush regime will take on Iran. The diplomacy ruse, like so many other words spilling from their mouths, is just another lie.

Continuing On With A Wasted Effort

For George W.'s next speech to sell his misguided war on terror, he's decided to bring representatives from countries that have suffered terrorists attacks to sit in the audience. This is not a brilliant move, unless Bush thinks the 65% of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq are idiots.
Bush is bringing people from London, Madrid, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to emphasize the global nature of his war on terror. This is a pure Rovian tactic, as while most of these places have suffered terror attacks, not one of these terrorist attacks was carried out by people from Iraq! This is where Bush thinks we a re idiots. He's already stated there were no WMD, flip flopped on his blaming Iraq for 9/11, and since we're fighting an insurgency in Iraq, the war there has no bearing on stopping worldwide terrorism.
Stopping for a moment to ignore the cost of flying these diverse people from around the globe, as well as accommodations while they visit, if Bush had put as much effort into rebuilding New Orleans as he has into selling us this quagmire, the city would be fixed and almost back to normal. I seriously have my doubts whether these people will actually come from said countries, or come from central casting. Why is Bush spending so much effort to try spin a war that's spinning out of control?
The neocons agenda, reshaping a new middle east, has put Iran in their sights next. Even though the IAEA found no tangible evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon program, and Russia has rejected sanctions against Teheran, we still will be going to war with Iran, which is why the rhetoric has switched from alQaeda to "Islamic Fascists", because there is no alQaeda in Iran. But he can't continue on with the neofascist agenda if he's losing support from the American people.

Republicans Behaving Like Children

Right now, words fail me. Idiotic, childish and moronic spring to mind, but they don't quite convey the sense of stupidity I feel when Republicans find fault with a visit from the former president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami. For one thing, the guy isn't even president of the country anymore. Another thing, he's coming to the US to attned a UN conference to promote dialogue and speak on religion's role in promoting peace. Peace, you can't have that around without the Republicans going all ape shit.
In fact, the head of the house subcommittee on the middle east, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Khatami's visit is "threat to U.S. national security interests and Middle East policy objectives." In other words, if Khatami shows up talking of peace, how can the neofascists so intent on nuking Iran scare the voters into supporting another war.

"It is mystifying that we would roll out the red carpet to a person who has incited violence against civilians and who has expressed incendiary rhetoric against the United States and our allies," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

Really? How has Khatami, a moderate in Iran, done that? In fact when he was president of Iran, he tried to start a dialogue with the US (under the Bush regime)about everything the Bush regime would like to attack Iran over, but the Bush administration, being the mature and responsible stewards of our country, stuck their fingers in their ears and "NA-na-na-na-na-na, I can't hear you". Well not really, but they did refuse to set up diplomatic channels between the two nations. And really, how can any Republican point a finger at a person they claim has "incited violence against civilians", when they supported the war in Iraq, as well as next year's war against Iran with out looking like a total hypocrite? They can't because they are.
Always one to jump on a bandwagon, if it gets him votes, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum called Khatami "one of the chief propagandists of the Islamic Fascist regime." Kind of Ahmedinejad's Karl Rove, chief propagandist for the American neofascist regime.
This is why we need to purge the legislature of Republicans. They've already decided on war with Iran, they don't need no peace spouting "Islamofascist" to muck it up for them. It kind of spoils the propaganda they are starting to lay on the American people in preparation for the coming invasion.

The New Fascism Vs. The Old

Fascism(fash` iz em),n. The form of government with strong control of industry and labor by the central government, great restrictions upon the freedom of individuals, and extreme nationalism and militarism. Strong opposition to radical socialism and communism.

The United States is fighting "a new type of facism," US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a veterans' group here Tuesday.

14 points of Fascism (hat tip to Left Of Center)

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared today’s situation with the situation with Nazi Germany. Let me see, militaristic nation pre-emptively strikes another, rounds up people to send to be tortured-he's right, the US is like Nazi Germany.
The Defense Secretary is on the defense as more and more Americans voice their displeasure over the increasing quagmire in Iraq. He blamed the terrorists for manipulating the media. I imagine the terrorists now as invisible gremlins, attaching themselves brainslug-like to reporters, forcing them to print stories that reflect poorly on US forces. Sure, everything looks bad if you examine it, trust the guy who lied to you. This is merely a reiteration of a claim he made six months ago. Desperate Donald must be getting to the bottom of his bag of tricks.
When they were reporting administration claims verbatim, Rumsfeld $ Co. had no problem with the media, but now, he says administration critics are suffering from moral or intellectual confusion.
Am I confused, or is it Mr. Rumsfeld? Maybe I'm the one confused because given the various reasons we needed to invade Iraq by the administration, every single one has been refuted or denied by same said administration. So if all these reasons were erroneous, why do we continue to stay in Iraq?
But then my confusion passes and I remember, we are there to make sure that all the oil goes to the US (and not China). In other words, we're stealing the oil. No moral confusion there, stealing is wrong, and killing innocent bystanders while you do it compounds the crime.
That's when Rumsfeld brings out the big guns. We are fighting a new kind of fascism, by being more fascist ourselves. Kind of like how we're fighting the terrorists by being bigger terrorists ourselves. The Islamofascists, we're told, want to take over the world and establish world wide Islam, so in order to counter that, the Christianazis want to take over the world (or, at least all the spots where Islamics sit on oil)and establish worldwide Christianity, no offense to the Jewish people, you're not invited.(But feel free to kill as many Muslims as you please for us. Thank you!)
Someone in the administration has stated "We're an empire now- we make our own reality"-just like the fucking bull-goose loony people do. Rumsfeld is a doddering old fool who needs to go, and the only way to get rid of him is to remove every other neofascist crazy in the administration.

Bush:"I Ain't Gonna Do A Damn Thing!"

Following on his declaration not to leave Iraq "As long as I am president" at a press conference last week, Bush now says that New Orleans may need a decade to rebuild following it's devastation last year by Hurricane Katrina.
"Let some other president fix it. I'm not going to," Bush said at a press conference today."My duties as president extend to making sure the Republicans hold on to their power in Congress, and starting wars to enrich my wealthy campaign contributors. The most I can offer for the people of New Orleans is a tax cut for it's wealthiest residents."
"If I had to fix every problem in this dang country, I'd never have anytime to go fishing with my daddy, or clear the brush from the Western White House, my ranch at Crawford."Bush then when on to state he had other things on his mind. "We're giving birth to a new middle east here, I don't have time for rebuilding America. Like withdrawin' our troops from Iran, I'll just have to leave that up to another president."
When a reporter pointed out that we have no troops in Iran, Bush replied, "Not yet."
(cross posted at The American Insurgency)

We've All Seen This Before And We Know How It Ends. Not Good

Let's play a game called "Who do you trust"? If you had to choose between a report on Iran, which one would you believe, the one authored by intelligence agents, with people in the region who understand the subtleties of the situation, or a bunch of congressmen, who are receiving deceiving reports from the White House? Intelligence agents, whose job it is to report on what's going on in Iran, or Republicans with a neo-fascist agenda?
Before you answer, remember who it was that told the truth about Iraq. The White House and it's congressional lapdogs told us a load of crap that they later have denied shoveling or (rarely) have admitted they were wrong about. Now these same people are doing the same for Iran. These are the same people who told us Iran was going to start a nuclear war, WWIII on August 22. Never happened. The same people who insist that Iran’s legal nuclear ambitions will be dealt with by the security council. That’s not going to happen, either.
What this means is that once again, the US will go it alone. Or build another “coalition of the willing”, because as neofascist guru Bill Kristol said on Fox the other day :

“I think we could be in a military confrontation with Iran much sooner than people expect. I don’t think this is an issue that’s going to wait two and a half years until President Bush leaves the presidency. I think he will decide at some point next year — in 2007 — he’ll have to make some very tough decisions about what the U.S. and the world can tolerate”

So now the decider is making decisions for the rest of the world? How much longer will the world be able to tolerate the bullying tactics of the Bush administration? Who will be blamed for faulty intelligence when this war becomes another quagmire? The ones who insisted we go to war to fulfill their neofascist agenda? Or the small minority of people who support them?

DeVos Takes On Bush. Kind Of.

Echoing calls made by Gov. Granholm, Republican gubnatorial candidiate Dick DeVos has called on President Bush to meet with auto makers. Why the sudden change of heart from a man who said automakers should "stop crabbing" about foreign competition? Could it be that DeVos is trailing in the polls?
The number one reason the automakers are hurting is a direct result of outsourcing, something that candidate DeVos has supported through donations to The Mackinac Center,the Acton Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Istitute, all major foundations advocating outsourcing of American jobs.
Look at it this way: If a large corporation lays off 1500 American workers and outsources their jobs, the ripple effect across the economy is detrimental. 1500 people on lay-off aren't going to buy 1500 new cars, houses, furniture, or appliances. That means less orders for those, which means the manufacturers have to lay off people. Not only that, but the community suffers as well. Grocery stores don't sell as many groceries, bar and restaurant business slows, people forgo seeing the doctor because they can no longer afford it, so cuts have to be made in these fields as well. Now, the original company that outsourced the jobs finds it orders down, so it has to lay-off more workers, beginning the whole downward spiral again. Even though we're being told by the idiot President that the economy is booming, the stark reality is the economy is on a downturn, and the outsourcing of jobs is one of the main culprits.
DeVos likes to talk about leadership, and how our state needs a leader, neglecting to mention that he cut 1400 jobs as President of Amway, a company that has invested over $100 million in China over the past five years. So much for some one investing in Michigan's future. The only future DeVos cares about is his own.

DeVos's criticism of Bush is a distancing tool as well. His family contributed more than any other family to the Bush campaign and the Republican party. DeVos says Bush has ignored Michigan too long, but perhaps he's annoyed with DeVos. In 2000, DeVos promised to deliver Michigan to Bush. DeVos also placed his voucher proposal on the same ballot, which brought out more voters than usual to strike it down, causing Bush to lose the state in 2000.
In his ads, DeVos doesn't even say he's a Republican, but he and his family have been closely associated with the Michigan Republican for years. His wife, Betsy, was even National Chairperson of the party. he tries to paint himself as an hoest down to earth guy, a guy who just happens to fly back and forth over the city in his own private helicopter. Since leaving Amway, the only jobs DeVos have created, besides the time Betsy paid some people to protest outside Fountain Street Church while Michael Moore was inside giving a free speech, have been in the field of PAC's.
DeVos's pet project is getting public funding for private schools, either through vouchers or tax cuts. If he was really concerned about Michigan's future, he would put an effort into making our public schools better by putting tax money into, not taking it away from them.
Face it, if DeVos were really honest, he'd mention his connections to Bush and Tom Delay (who held a conference on DeVos's yacht), but he doesn't want voters to know the real Dick. Dick is a Republican, the same people who have been running the legislature for years. Granholm is not a unitary executive, she can only sign bills passed by the legislature. She inherited a budget deficit from John "Fat Boy" Engler, who in turn inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor Jim Blanchard. But the problem is not the politicians, it's the greedy bastards like Dick DeVos who have sacrificed Michigan's labor force so they can attain more wealth, which in turn they would like to use to tell those displaced workers
For Kathy, here's my own Amway story. In 2002 I was working at Amway for the company i am presently employed by. Throughout the facilities, at every break area and cafeteria, there are television monitors giving Amway approved news headlines for the employees. On September 11, 2002, everyone was given plastic American flags that were made in China to attach to their cars. At the time of the first plane impact, everybody was herded to a television set to observe a moment of silence. The monitor focused on the flags in front of world headquarters, flying at half mast. Amway World Headquarters is located on M-21, a busy thouroughfare, and the camera was stationed across the road. But whoever was running the camera forgot to turn off the sound, so at the time we were supposed to be observing a moment of silence, we were instead treated to the sound of traffic rumbling down the highway in front of Amway.

Debunking The Imminent Nuclear Attack.

Today on the radio, the propagandists were discussing an op-ed piece in the WSJ by Bernard Lewis that stated that tomorrow there's a likelihood of a nuclear attack by Iran. I haven't even read the article and I know it's bunk, neofascist propaganda setting up Iran as the fall guy for a false flag operation. I don't know what's in there, but I'm sure he puts forth his case well enough that the ill-informed (such as the "deejays" on the radio and much of their listening audience) might believe it to be so, but I don't buy it one bit.
First off, the reason the he speculates that tom orrow this will happen, is because tomorrow is th deadline for an proposal made by the UN for Iran to stop enriching uranium, something it has every right to do as a signee of the NPT. If Iran refuses, the matter will be brought to the Security Council, who will then vote on sanctions. Mr. Lewis proposes that Iran will start WWIII rather than face the sanctions imposed on it. However, what Mr. Lewis probably doesn't inform his readers with is the fact that security council members Russia and China have deals with Iran. Russia is building the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, while China, quickly becoming a large energy consumer, has made a deal with Iran to supply China with the oil it needs to feed it's growing economy. Neither one is likely to vote for sanctions, so in reality, Iran has nothing to worry about in the security council.
Iran also doesn't want to go to war. I know that Mr. Lewis' article probably refers to statements made by Iranian president Ahmednejhad concerning "wiping Israel off the map", an interpretation offered by the Israel paranoia leaning MEMRI. However, other interpretations of Ahmednejhad's statement have been Israel "should be erased form the pages of history". Neither statement reflect the Iranian president's desire to do this himself, it was more a statement of frustration with a country that mistreats it's Muslim population. But Iran offered to suspend it's uranium enrichment in exchange for a guarantee that the US will not attack it. This offer was rejected by the US.
However, Israel would like nothing better than to force regime change in Iran. If not for the statements made by it's president, than surely because Iran is arming Hizb-Ullah with missiles that Hizb-Ullah is firing at Israel. And of course the neofascists who signed the PNAC would like to force regime change in Iran as well. Why? Because Iran has made a deal to sell it's energy to China, meaning that all those oil profits that should be going to big oil in America will instead be going to Iran. And as we speak, people working for Dick Cheney are cherry picking intelligence and forging documents, just like they did for Iraq, to justify starting another war in the middle east. One that will be called the "war on terror", but will have nothing to do with terrorists acts or 9/11 or alQaeda at all.
Dick Cheney was a little disappointed that Israel's recent incursion into Lebanon didn't spread in to Syria, as an Israeli war with Syria would involve Iran and the US. In order to secure the gulf region's resources, according to the PNAC, the US must use it's role as the world's remaining superpower (while it still can) to effect regime change throughout the region. That's why we went to Iraq and why we're staying there until every last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground.None of this I'm sure is mentioned in Mr. Lewis's piece.
Neither does Mr. Lewis probably mention the plan Cheney had STRATCOM draw up last year, calling for a nuclear strike against Iran following the next terorist attack, even if Iran is not involved.
Iran has not the missile capability to strike the US. The most it's most recently tested rockets can go is 15,000 metres. It will be able to strike US soldiers in Iraq, and it will be able to strike at Israel. Unfortunately, IT WILL NOT BE A NUCLEAR ATTACK. Why? Because Iran has NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS!! They lack the 64,000 centrifuges it requires to enrich enough uranium to make a nuclear device. Our own National Intelligence estimate from November of last year puts Iran at least ten years away from having the capabilities to build a nuclear device. Since they do not have nukes, how are they going to nuke anyone?
No, the only two armed forces in the region with nuclear capabilities are the US and Israel. If Iran were to strike at Israel with one nuclear weapon, Israel would make sure that it didn't happen again. Look how they responded when two of their soldiers were captured by Hizb-Ullah in Lebanon. Now multiply that by, I don't know, ten million, and you'd have a pretty good idea of what Israel would do. Ahmednejhad would be a fool to do so, and let me tell you, he's no fool. Unlike our idiot president who can't even finish a sentence.
So who are you going to believe? Someone from the media, the same media that said :
1. Saddam has WMD
2. Iraq has ties to alQaeda
3. Iraq was involved in 9/11
4. The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror,
all of which are lies. Or are you going to look at the facts.

UPDATE: It turns out Mr. Lewis is a professor of Islamic studies! That explains his lack of knowledge as per the nuclear capabilities of Iran! But it sure has a bunch of ill-informed people scared!

An Important Portent

I'm more confused than a Republican in an ethics class. First, Joe Lieberman loses in the primaries. Then the Bush ADDministration backs Joe as an independent, over the Republican candidate for the senate seat in Connecticut. Now today, we have Lieberman Calling for Donald Rumsfeld to step down. More campaign rhetoric from a man trying to distance himself from the Bush regime, or a portent of a shake up already in the works.
Rumsfeld has been the point man for criticism of the way the war has been handled, because he has been handling it very poorly. he bought into Cheney's rhetoric that the Iraqis would throw flowers at our feet, and claimed he knew where those non-existent WMD were. Then there was Hilary's pillorying of Rumsfeld last week, where it seemed even the propagandists in the corporate media were mocking him. Does Cheney want someone else in the DoD for Iran and Syria?
Lieberman, for his part, criticized the Bush ADDministration, now, after he lost the primary because of it, for poor planning in it's invasion of Iraq, which he still cites as a good thing. (Even though it was a violation of international law)He said the ADDministration must put pressure on the Iraqi government to end sectarian violence in that country. WTF? How do you propose we do that Joe? Take away their running water, their electricity, their oil? We've already done that, thanks to the war, people who had all that 24/7 under Saddam, are now having to do with out under the US puppet regime.
And once again, like all the bought and paid for politicians, Lieberman links the war in Iraq to the war on terror, "we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.
If it was meant to end terrorism, it didn't work.
So, is Lieberman distancing himself from the Bush regime? Is he doing it by calling out the one person who is probably on the way out anyway? Or is Rumsfeld the easiest to criticize? (In this administration, who isn't?)Whatever the reason, Bush has allegedly refused Rumsfeld's resignation before, I doubt he'll listen to Joe, no matter how good a kisser he may be.

CorruptCo Update

Two former executives at DHB Industries were arrested today on charges they manipulated the books to make millions of dollars in inside trading. Faithful readers of this blog (both of you) may remember them from the Corruptco blogfest piece I did on them in February of this year, And Then He Changed Into A Pink Leather Outfit For Aerosmith, which was about DHB Industries CEO, David Brooks and the lavish bat mitzvah he through for his daughter. David Brooks has been placed on indefinite leave by the ASE pending the outcome of investigations.
The two executives, Chief Financial Officer Dawn Shlegel and Chief Operating Officer Sandra Hatfield, inflated DHB earnings and profit margins between 2003 and 2005. They then sold thousands of shares based on inside information, netting a cool $8 million. Which is not as much as the CEO spent on his daughter's party, but enough to get them thrown in the clink for up to twenty five years (as if), while they'll probably go the Ken Lay route and spend all the money they bilked the investing public out of to keep themselves free on appeal until all their money's gone, or they croak from a heart attack at the prospect of actually having to bear punishment for breaking the law.

You Can't Teach An Old Elephant New Tricks

Now that the primaries are behind us and as we head in to the final stretch of the campaign, the Republicans are unleashing their "new" strategy.
Are they trumpeting the booming economy? No, new housing starts fell in July, even after economists lowered their expectations. The once booming housing market has cooled down, as people who are paying more for gas are deciding mortgaging their future for a McMansion isn't within their reach anymore. But hey, the guys at the top are doing well!
Are they touting success in the war on drugs? No, actually opium production is up in Afghanistan, thanks to intervention there by the US military. I guess the war on drugs is off the burner completely and back in the fridge until some future administration needs it to take more of our rights away from us.
Is it the success in Iraq? Well, they can't use that as 67% of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, WMD, or terrorists, and even the Iraqis are ungrateful (in Our Supreme Leader's eyes) for the freedoms we have brought them. Along with the lasting effects of depleted uranium.
So what's left in the GOP bag of tricks? Of course, the only thing they poll well on, national security, the good old war on terror. That's why we have Orrin Hatch saying the terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again." Who wants to bet on the terrorists striking the US after a big Democrat win in November?
Then, following a court ruling thatthe NSA wiretapping program is illegal, we have US Attorney General El-Turdo Gonzalez stating terrorists are in our neighborhoods. We call them Republicans. They need to keep the populace paranoid to maintain their power and protect the president's programs aimed at dislodging our constitutional rights from us. And if that isn't terrorism....
It would be nice to have a Congress and president focused on domestic issues instead of obsessing on making the middle east over in some twisted neofascist wet dream. The only domestic issues the Republicans care about (aside from shielding Bush from any responsibility for his actions) are flag burning (when was the last time you saw a flag burned? In this country, I mean) and gay marriages (those horrible, horrible things that cause irreparable harm to no one). I think it's time the voters taught the Republicans a new tune, because I'm sick of the same old song and dance.

The Terrorists Must Be Working For The Republicans

Why is it that terrorists only plan to attack in election years? Last year, there were no serious terrorist attacks or plots in the US, and already this year, they've uncovered four, the last one unveiled right after the pro-war crowd declared that voting for the anti-war crowd will lead to more terrorist attacks. And now that public sentiment has turned away from the war in Iraq, all of a sudden there is a rash of foiled terror plots aimed at Americans.
The idiot American, those incapable of rational thought think, they're attacking us because we're soft on the war in Iraq. The rational mind would think a). they're still attacking us in spite of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, therefore the whole purpose of fighting the war to fight terrorism has been a dismal failure that has gained us nothing and lost us plenty, and b). therefore the wars in the Middle East have not deterred those who wish to attack us over here, as opposed to over there.
Every cut in the constitution, every suspension of our rights has been, we've been told, to prevent the terrorists from attacking us. Still the terrorists conspire. Violate the Geneva convention? The terrorists still conspire. Suspend habeas corpus? The terrorists still conspire. Spy on American citizens? The terrorists still conspire. It's as if Bush really believes they hate us because we're free and he's doing everything in his power to insure we don't stay that way too much longer. We are losing everything and gaining nothing, especially if they feel compelled to spring more terrorist conspiracies on us in the months leading to the mid-term elections. They tried banning gay marriages, and protecting the flag, to no avail, now they're back to what works best for them:terrorism.
What America needs is someone who will examine the true causes of their hatred for us, and in case you aren't listening, it's not because we're free. It's not because they want to take over the world and establish world wide theocracy (that's what the fundamentalist Christians want), it's because everywhere Arabs and Muslims are being threatened in their own countries, it's because the people handing weapons over to Israel and vetoing any resolution against Israel in the UN as they take more Palestinian and now Lebanese land away from the indigeonous people is the US. The power propping up oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, is the US. The ones threatening regime changes to puppet governments more attuned to big oil's interests than the people they govern is the US. And the US doesn't give a fuck about whom they kill to do it, civilians or not, it's not as important as making very wealthy white people wealthier. All they want from you is your tax dollars and they'd let the alligators get you given the chance.
In the five years since alQaeda allegedly hijacked four airplanes and flew them with impunity over the most secure airspace on the planet, we've allowed alQaeda to escape into Pakistan and take over Somalia. In the meantime we've invaded one sovereign nation and enabled our ally as it bombed another, because we wish to start more wars with everybody except the people we claimed were responsible for the original attack. Osama Bin Laden, if he's not dead is still running around forgotten by the Bush ADD-mistration and the neocons as they strive to remake the region over like a drunken heterosexual on What Not To Wear. Their plans are not working and we are none the more safer because of them! Just imagine what will occur once they get the opportunity to invade Iran and Syria, which is more certain to happen if the Republicans and pro-war Democrats hold on to Congress, and is why they must be defeated at the polls.
Republicans accuse Democrats of playing politics with the war in Iraq (which, they want the brainwashed brain dead brain damaged beer swilling flag waving chemically imbalanced NASCAR watching American idiots to believe is somehow connected to the war on terror), but the terror conspiracies always are uncovered when it's convenient for Republicans. Coincidence?

Chemical Mixture Causes Media Paranoid Hallucinations On Severity Of Terror Conspiracy

This seems a bit, odd. While Pakistan claims that the recent terror conspiracy (because that's what it was, a conspiracy)has ties to alQaeda, (and not the ISI), Michael "Cryptkeeper" Chertoff says there is no conclusion on alQaeda being involved. Which is a bit of a back pedal from what he said the day before. What's going on here? Why is the media making a foiled conspiracy seem like another 9/11?
As people board planes, they are asked to dump all liquids into bins. Now, I never took chemistry, but I know that certain chemicals can not be mixed. Even simple household chemicals. And what they're doing here is mixing all sorts of bases and compounds together with out regard to any chemical reaction that may occur.
My theory is that all these chemicals mixed together have caused a vapor to be released at the airports, making media types covering the story hallucinate paranoid visions. And Michael Chertoff, who made his most recent speech from the Ronald W. Reagan International Airport, simply succumber to these vapors.
So what's going on here is something similar to mixing the wrong medications. Sometimes it can lead to death (we're lucky a cloud of chlorine gas hasn't formed yet in these airports. And if it did, you can be sure it would be blamed on the terrorists, and not the idiot who came up with this plan), sometimes it can merely cause you to see things that aren't there. Like a 9/11 in a foiled conspiracy.

(For the idiots:conspiracy-the act of conspiring; some secret planning to do something unlawful or wrong)

The Thirty Nine Percent Fascists

The recent hype about the "foiled terror plot" seems oddly timed. Right after Joe Lieberman's loss in the primary was seen as a referendum on 'the war on terror' on cue comes the tightening of security, even though they have been investigating this for the last 18 months. You can always tell when election is near by the "Islamofascist paranoia level" being run by the Republicans.
But who really is the fascists here? 60% of Americans now are opposed to the war in Iraq, which has never had anything to do with the war on terror and everything to do with the Project For A New American Century. Lieberman and the Republicans have labeled them extremists, when in fact, they are the extremists in this case.
Now think about this:39% of Americans advocate that Muslims should have special ID's. You know like the Star of David or Pink Triangles the Nazis made the Jews and the Homosexuals wear. Thirty nine percent is also the highest Bush's approval rating has reached post-Katrina.
I'm sure that these 39% would also support taking action against Iran and Syria for the failed terror plot, even though the 'terrorists' were second generation Pakistanis, because they lack the mental faculties to discern one Islamic state from another. Even Michael Chertoff suggested that alQaeda was behind this, because along with 9/11, al Qaeda is the magic shit-your-pants word for the thirty-nine percenters.

Fox Backs Lieberman So I Don't

Just as I was preparing to take a night off, I stumbled across this story concerning the Democratic Senate primary in Conneticut. It seems Joe Lieberman has cancelled scheduled campaign events today in order to spend the day making get out the vote calls. No big deal, I was almost going to say what does it matter who wins the primary as long as the Democrats hold the seat in November.
But then as I read the article, it became clear why Lieberman must be defeated. Fox News is backing him up! A report today on the channel on Ned Lamont featured the headlines "Have Democrats Forgotten The Lessons Of 9/11?" What did we learn from 9/11? Apparently nothing, as we still keep playing the enabler to the Israel war machine as it continues it's offensive measures against the whole country of Lebanon. We still are pushing for regime change throughout the region while mired in two wars with out end already that have yielded nothing but more hatred towards the US. And, ultimately, what does the war in Iraq have to do with 9/11 anyway? Not a fucking thing!
The report also featured the headline "A Lamont Win, Bad News For Democracy In Mid East? Yes folks, if Lamont wins, he'll be sure to vote against any further military actions the Bush regime has planned for the erst of the Mid East, namely Syria and Iran, we'll leave the Saudis and Kuwaitis to their respective monarchies, which shows you what a heap of shit this whole "war on terror" is, I mean most of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Osama himself, were all Saudis, but they get a pass because Bush likes holding hands with Prince Bandar.
Sean Hannity even pledged his support for Lieberman back in February of this year. One wonders who Hannity and Fox will back in November if Lieberman wins. Or decides to run as an independent. Lieberman turned Hannity down, Joe has already received the kiss of death from Bush, he doesn't need any more help digging his political grave from a fuckwad like Hannity.

The Pro-Life Drain Comissioner, Who Mailed The Anthrax, and The Finicky American

The Pro-Life Drain Commissioner
Today on the radio, one of the hosts of the morning show was discussing a pamphlet he received from a candidate for county drain commissioner. At the very top of the candidates list for qualifications was the fact that this person was "pro-life". The host then wondered if that should really be considered a qualification, as none of the decisions that person would be making would affect policy in that area. And he was right, the best qualifiaction for that position would be someone who was aware of the issues dealing directly with the duties of drains, preferrably someone who was maybe more environmentalist, as to keep the shit from flowing into the Grand River.
But this got me to thinking: perhaps instead of voting for the candidate who has the same position on the issues you have, it would be better to vote for the candidate more qualified to make an intelligent and informed decision on an issue, rather than one who has already made up their mind. Of course, what this really means is, the person who has made up their mind on the issues has shown us how they would resolve them, regardless of any new or relevant facts that may spring up on any issue.
Who Mailed The Anthrax?
Of course, right after this, the show went onto ridicule the people who don't buy the official story on 9/11. How can it be a government conspiracy?
Well, the first way, would be for the government to arrest the person who excercised the 'put' options on American Airlines and United Airlines whose stock went down in the days following 9/11. Also included were reinsurance companies, and financial service companies.Basically, these people were buying options on the basis that within a time frame, the price of these stocks would fall. What's more, is that call options, that is, people who predicted the price of a stock would rise, also rose on companies such as Raytheon, a weapons manufacturer. Somebody knew something was going on and intended to make money from it. But who? Since put and call options can't be purchased with out ID, they know who, they just haven't released it to the public, and the SEC went as far as to deputize investigators, making it illegal for them to publicly disclose any information they may have uncovered.
But what's more interesting is the anthrax letters sent to members of Congress and media outlets in the days following 9/11. I have always found it interesting that the recepiants of these letters in the Congress were all Democrats. At first, it was blamed on Iraq, until it was found out the anthrax was a weaponized variety made right here in the good old US of A.
The FBI investigated one man who worked at the lab and wrote a book using a similar scenario, but never turned up any evidence against him. There is evidence of one unauthorized person entering the lab after hours, however this person was never investigated. Will we ever find out who these people were, or is someone hoping that we forget that these incidents ever occurred?
The Finicky American
Today at lunch, while preparing some lime ginger chicken stir-fry, a woman asked if she could have hers with out mushrooms.
"I'm probably un-American for asking for it like that, "she joked.
"No, " I replied "Americans always want things their way." the man standing next to her agreed.
I then imagined a group of American tourists coming to an exotic restaurant in a foreign country, where monkey brains are served right from the skull, a la Indiana Jones. One of the finicky Americans raises their hand at the server and says, "Excuse me, but can I get mine with out any cerebral cortex, please?"

It Doesn't Take A Clairvoyant

It seems the rest of the world is finally catching up to Kunstler. An article in today's Guardian by Paul Harris discusses how rising gas prices may signal the end of the suburbam utopia. The housing bubble is dangerously close to popping. Housing sales have declined for the past nine months in a row. And those are new houses, older houses, refinanced at new housing prices are expected to take a hit if the bubble bursts. If the bubble does burst, it could plunge the economy into a recession.
Which is what the Federal Reserve is seeing in the future. The economy, which the Republicans have told us is booming, has created fewer jobs than expected. The official unemployment rate, that is, people still receiving benefits (as opposed to those whose benefits have run out while still being unsuccessful at finding employment)is at 4.8 percent (here in Michigan, it's at 6.3 percent).But what else has been happening is a widening of the gap between net worth and wage growth. In the period from 1991 to 1996, net worth grew 15.6 percent while wages gained 11.3 percent. From 2001 to 2005, net worth rose 16.6 percent, while wages grew only 2.7 percent.
As I have said here before (or was it at Lose The Noose?), the economy is only booming at the top. The people who are asking for the tax cut the Republicans want to give them aren't feeling the pinch that even Las Vegas is feeling. Trade deficits, budget deficits, just don't ask the upper classes to help their country at all.
I really don't see this country getting out of this. More jobs outsourced leads to more lay-offs, which leads to more outsourcing, which leads to more lay-offs, and until we stop the hemorrhaging of jobs the economy is going to continue to head to a recession. In the meantime, we can expect to see working people mocked by the likes of Paris Hilton on shows like The Simple Life because she knows she's going to get that estate tax cut someday, which the working people will keep working to pay for her (hey, it's not like she could hold down a job anyway)and those like her who feel their entitled to contribute nothing to the betterment of society.

Disturbed Singer Really Disturbed

David Draiman recently made a statement advoctaing ethnic cleansing that would make Mel Gibson's recent remarks seem like, well, the rantings of a drunk anti-semite.

"I think we should wipe them all out — every terrorist, every war-mongering piece of garbage. We should congregate them all on one island and nuke it. A line must be drawn."

Draiman made his staement following the recent crisis in Lebanon, which was provoked when Israel violated the border with Lebanon, something they have done almost daily in the last year, in an effort to start a plan that Israel had in place for the last year. You see, Mr. Draiman, a line was drawn, it was called the Lebanese border and Israel was the one who crossed it. Who's the war mongers here? A country that covets the Litani River water needed for the survival of Israel? Or the people of Lebanon, tired of watching Israel seize more of their land as "buffer zones" from acts of retaliation that Israel provoked?
Does Mr. Draiman include nuking the neocons in the White House? They've already mongered up two wars, and are looking to start even more, by themselves, or using Israel as their proxy. In fact, Bush knew in advance that Israel was planning to bomb southern Lebanon.
Mr. Draiman is angered because he has family members in Haifa, as well having a friend killed and another injured. But once again, it must be pointed out, that the propaganda has got it wrong.

Ultimately, [Hezbollah] committed an act of war: they crossed the border and kidnapped soldiers.

No, sadly this isn't the case.

It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel.

So, who are you going to believe, the singer for a really lame metal band or professional journalists?
No one should be amazed that this hate speech managed to get by the mainstream media, a). it was directed towards Arabs, which is perfectly acceptable, and b). it was from the singer of a second rate metal band.So I'm sure Mr. Draiman feels perfectly comfortable with the genocide being perpetrated by the powers that be in Washington, and Tel-Aviv. 900 people in three weeks, a third of them under twelve years old, well, that's acceptable. Or a good start. But only the truly brainwashed can't see who's the terrorists and war mongers here.

Is This Really What You Want?

In a speech yesterday in Los Angeles, Tony Blair issued a warning to Iran and Syria:"come into the international community and play by the same rules as us." And what rules would those be, Mr. Blair?
Pre-emptive strikes? The US and the UK have declared the right to use them, does this mean Syria has the right to strike Israel because it landed commandos near the Syrian border. It's obvious that the US and Israel are planning an action against Syria, by the US rules, that gives them the right to strike Israel and us.
Regime change? The US has declared it has the right to effect regime change in countries less friendly to US interests. Does this mean Iran should be trying to effect regime change in the US because of it's hostilities towards Iran as it develops it's peaceful nuclear power agenda?
Political assassinations? Isreal uses these all the time, most recently having attmepted the assassination of two members of the Hamas led government. Does this mean Syria is absolved for it's alleged role in the assassination of Lebanese foreign Minister Hariri?
You see, asshole, when you spout off about how high and fucking mighty you are, you had better make sure that you are all you claim. Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite.

This Is Front Page News?

On the front page of last Saturday's NYTimes there was an article dealing iwth a drinking contest between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. In Estonia. Two fucking years ago! What the article was about was how these two bonded and now are facing each other for their respective parties nomination.
But what struck me the most was the NY Times referring to Hillary as the front runner for the Democratic nomination. How did that happen? Online I see Russ Feingold leading in most polls, so how could Hillary be considered the front runner? Than I googled Democratic party front runner 2008 and found out that in Iowa, it's not even Hillary or Feingold in the lead-it's John Edwards!
How can Hillary be the front runner? I can't think of a single Democrat I know who supports the war in Iraq, Hell, half of America doesn't, yet Hillary does! And still she is the front runner. How can that be?
And more importantly, why would any body stick with a party that doesn't offer a real alternative to the war party? Might as well vote for the Republicans, at least they don't pretend to be progressive. Why vote for the Democrats in November? Pelosi has already stated they're not going to impeach Bush, what's the point of voting for the opposition if they're not really an opposition?
Our political system is so fucked. i can't hardly wait for the new season of American Idol so I can vote on some thing that really matters!