The I-Word is Gaining Ground--UPDATED

In 1998, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, currently under indictment on corruption charges, proclaimed: "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law...The other road is the path of least resistance" in which "we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us...[and] close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking...and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system." That arbiter of moral politics was incensed about the possibility of Bill Clinton escaping unpunished for his "crimes."

Fast forward to December 2005. Not one official in the entire Bush Administration has been fired or indicted, not to mention impeached, for the shedding of American blood in Iraq or for the shredding of our Constitution at home. As Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter put it--hours after the New York Times reported that Bush had authorized NSA wiretapping of US citizens without judicial warrants--this President has committed a real transgression that "goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power."

In the last months, several organizations, including AfterDowningStreet, Impeach Central and ImpeachPAC.org, have formed to urge Bush's impeachment. But until very recently, their views were virtually absent in the so-called "liberal" MSM, and could only be found on the Internet and in street protests.

But the times they are a' changin'. The I-word has moved from the marginal to the mainstream--although columnists like Charles "torture-is-fine-by-me" Krauthammer would like us to believe that "only the most brazen and reckless and partisan" could support the idea. In fact, as Michelle Goldberg reports in Salon, "in the past few days, impeachment "has become a topic of considered discussion among constitutional scholars and experts (including a few Republicans), former intelligence officers, and even a few politicians." Even a moderately liberal columnist like Newsweek's Alter sounds like The Nation, observing: "We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator."

As Editor & Publisher recently reported, the idea of impeaching Bush has entered the mainstream media's circulatory system--with each day producing more op-eds and articles on the subject. Joining the chorus on Christmas Eve, conservative business magazine Barron's published a lengthy editorial excoriating the president for committing a potentially impeachable offense. "If we don't discuss the program and lack of authority of it," wrote Barron's editorial page editor Thomas Donlan, "we are meeting the enemy--in the mirror."

Public opinion is also growing more comfortable with the idea of impeaching this president. A Zogby International poll conducted this summer found that 42 percent of Americans felt that impeaching Bush would be justified if it was shown that he had manipulated intelligence in going to war in Iraq. (John Zogby admitted that "it was much higher than I expected.") By November, the number of those who favored impeaching Bush stood at 53 percent--if it was in fact proven that Bush had lied about the basis for invading Iraq. (And these polls were taken before the revelations of Bush's domestic spying.)

For those interested in some of the most compelling charges against the president, I offer a brief summary:

* Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean argued in his aptly-named book Worse than Watergate that Bush's false statements about WMDs in Iraq--used to drum up support for an invasion--deceived the American people and Congress. This constituted "an impeachable offense," Dean told PBS' Bill Moyers in 2004. "I think the case is overwhelming that these people presented false information to the Congress and to the American people." Bush's actions were actually far worse than Watergate, Dean contends, because "no one died for Nixon's so-called Watergate abuses."

Lending credence to Dean's arguments, the Downing Street Memo revealed that Britain's MI-6 Director Richard Dearlove had told Tony Blair that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush Administration. John Bonifaz, a Boston-based attorney and constitutional law expert, said that Bush seemingly "concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated," and "must certainly be punished for giving false information to the Senate." Bush deceived "the American people as to the basis for taking the nation into war against Iraq," Bonifaz argued--an impeachable offense.

* Rep. John Conyers argued as well that the president committed impeachable offenses" because he and senior administration officials "countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq" at Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere, including Guantanamo Bay and the now-notorious "black sites" around the world.

* The most compelling evidence of Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors is the revelation that he repeatedly authorized NSA spying on US citizens without obtaining the required warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. Constitutional experts, politicians and ex-intelligence experts agree that Bush "committed a federal crime by wiretapping Americans." Rep. John Lewis--"the first major House figure to suggest impeaching Bush," said the AP--argued that the president "deliberately, systematically violated the law" in authorizing the wiretapping. Lewis added: "He is not King, he is president."

Meanwhile, Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University School of Law--a specialist in surveillance law--told Knight Ridder that Bush's actions "violated federal law" and raised "serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors." It is worth remembering that an abuse of power similar to Bush's NSA wiretapping decision was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974. [This comparison was brought home in the ACLU's powerful full page ad in the New York Times of December 22nd.]

And at the end of the year, John Dean weighed in on the parallels between the two Presidents. In his powerful article, George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably, Dean documents how these new revelations add weight to the case for impeaching Bush: "There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons. ...Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope....Reports have suggested that NSA is 'data mining' literally millions of calls--and has been given access to the telecommunications companies to 'switching' stations through which foreign communications traffic flows. In sum, this is big-time. Big Brother electronic surveillance."

There are many reasons why it is crucial that the Democrats regain control of Congress in '06, but consider this one: If they do, there may be articles of impeachment introduced and the estimable John Conyers, who has led the fight to defend our constitution, would become Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Wouldn't that be a truly just response to the real high crimes and misdemeanors that this lawbreaking president has so clearly committed?

Comments (646)

1. For anyone with understanding and respect for the Constitution, it is obvious that Bush has violated the Fourth Amendment and federal law. This is the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Clinton lying about sex is nothing compared to this. It is timely and respondsible to talk about impeachment. If the Republicans were loyal to the Constitution, they would be discussing impeachment. Bush has declared himself king in an undeclared war. We don't allow kings in this country. The Founding Fathers came here to avoid that.

   Posted by philbq at 12/27/2005 @ 10:53am

2. HOLIDAY RECIPE FOR LAME DUCK

   Choose from the following foul: Dead or sitting duck, big turkey, or chicken-hawk (Guts will already have been removed from chicken-hawk, so stuffing may proceed immediately) Remove backbone, but bind the bird with Duck Tape in hostage posture to give structure and an impression of unity. For an unexpected taste sensation, marinate the bird-brain in al

   Posted by whybaby at 12/27/2005 @ 11:32am

3. HOLIDAY RECIPE FOR LAME DUCK

   Choose from the following foul:

   Dead or sitting duck, big turkey, or chicken-hawk

   (Guts will already have been removed from chicken-hawk, so stuffing may proceed immediately)

   Remove backbone, but bind the bird with Duck Tape in hostage posture to give structure and an impression of unity.

   For an unexpected taste sensation, marinate the bird-brain in alcohol

   forming it into a pretend head-shape,

   placing where the head would ordinarily be.

   Expect brain to shrink further in the heat.

   Pluck bird, and feather the nests of the already wealthy and well-connected.

   Create a stuffing of Rummy Rice and selected nuts.

   Simmer in a cup of extra virgin 10-40 oil.

   Then bake in white phosphorus (if unavailable, substitute napalm).

   Line and press stuffing into every open pocket.

   Turn heat setting to intolerable.

   Place bird on rack and torture out of sight until skin falls off the bone or until Constitutional lawyers stop you.

   Skewer the wings together. Once bird is done, remove the left wing completely and discard.

   For flambe or blackened bird, toss in an I.E.D.

   Cover duck, or duck and cover, as you wish.

   Offer the bird to members of the press when they start to ask real questions.

   Invite lobbyists to dinner first, and save them the most tender flesh.

   Serve lying repeatedly on a bed of Saudi sand, and present with straight face and talking points.

   When all have gathered, prey over the community.

   Follow the same recipe for Cooked Goose, but invite a few grunts on their third military tours for a last supper.

   Send carcass and leftovers (if any) to New Orleans for a homeland gumbo or stew.

   ....................................................................Copy right Dinah Kudatsky 2005

   Waiting for light at the end of this tunnel. Shine on, Katrina!

   Posted by whybaby at 12/27/2005 @ 11:38am

4. ....continuing the Avian theme; forget about it, we as a nation have lost our voice. While all these points are being chirped over, our Soverign Holder repeats the impeachable behavior demanding no-bid contracts for a propagandized avian-flu epidemic. The same package used to sell the Invasion of Iraq is in play; Instill fear, Suspend the Constitution, legal-up the crime, enrich Beltway Banditry. We cannot act like Road-runners anymore. We just bear the spinning.

   Posted by JosephSeo at 12/27/2005 @ 12:23pm

5. Katrina darlin:

   You don't seem to get it do you? As I stated once before, this two bit, bellicose, xanax cowboy will continue to circumvent the laws of this land for as long as he usurps the presidency. Get use to it. You could have The Founding Fathers come back from their graves and Dubya would still carry on, unabated with his mendacious ways. And you can thank the media: Blitzer, Matthew's, O'Donnell, Bash, Mitchell, Williams, even Mr. Potato Head himself, Russert for that! They've given Bush and his feckless administration a free pass ever since he was selected.

   I can remember back when I first started listening to Chris Matthew's Hardball, around the time they were begining to put the screws to Clinton. Every single night all they talked about was The Sex Scandal. It was every night! Now! You have a president who lied his way into a war, who is spying on it's own citizens and what do we see on Hardball or Joe Scarborough or wait! Better yet, Rita (I need a Ricola) Cosby? They're not pressing the issue like the should! This is what's wrong with the media. The so called "Liberal Media". It's Sickening! And as a result the mendacity, it will continue.

   Katrina, the '06 election is quite a ways off. Bush is liable to do anything by then.

   Posted by Munich at 12/27/2005 @ 1:12pm

6. Katrina vanden Heuvel cites a Zogby poll which shows Americans are becoming more enlightened about Bush's dictatorial regime, "International poll conducted this summer found that 42 percent of Americans felt that impeaching Bush would be justified if it was shown that he had manipulated intelligence in going to war in Iraq. (John Zogby admitted that "it was much higher than I expected.") By November, the number of those who favored impeaching Bush stood at 53 percent--if it was in fact proven that Bush had lied about the basis for invading Iraq. (And these polls were taken before the revelations of Bush's domestic spying.)"

   This last revelation underscores exactly why this nefarious little dictator whose repugnance for democracy and individual rights should be impeached, removed from office and sent to Leavenworth Penitentiary for the crimes he has committed against our country.

   The sooner he and his equally perverted Republican war and hate-mongering propagandists and Right Wing ideologues are removed from power the better for our country and for the protections and preservation of our civil liberties which are guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

   When Bush was asked by a reporter in early 2003 if we would be going to war against Iraq Bush replied scornfully, "I get to make that call, not you." G. W. Bush has circumvented and unilaterally subverted the laws of our country and issued edicts solely based on his perceived unlimited and unchecked power to essentially say to all Americans, "I get to decide what rights you have, not the United States Constitution."

   This attitude and quest for absolute power prevails and will be strengthened under the new provisions which expand his executive powers beyond those that were inserted in the original USA Patriot Act. In truth, Bush has become our nation's first dictator and perhaps the Freudian slip he made on his first day in office has become prophetic when he exclaimed, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." No question about it, he got his wish.

   But don't look to the equally depraved, corrupt Republican-controlled U.S. Congress to show an ounce of courage or integrity, principles sorely lacking in both major political parties.

   Bush's loathing for our laws cannot be more transparent than the recent disclosure that he and his out-of-control snoop agencies like the CIA, NSA and DIA are gathering information with domestic spying, circumventing and violating the Fourth Amendment protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

   These agencies are now routinely spying on ordinary Americans whose only transgression seems to be that they openly dissent and oppose this dysfunctional regime and Bush's disastrous decisions to preemptively attack another country using false and misleading information. These decisions so far cost over 2,160 deaths of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi men women and children. Though there are no precise figures for deaths of the Iraqis Bush himself at a press conference admitted to "30,000, more or less."

   Now he wants to secure his authority to name anyone, foreign or U. S. citizen, as an enemy combatant with no right to legal representation or access to U. S. courts.

   Instead, Bush pursues even greater powers which are included in the latest version of the USA Patriot Act which will be renewed soon. With only four out of fifty-five Republican senators keeping their distance from this overreaching, autocratic piece of legislation it will not take much arm-twisting to get them back in lockstep with the rest of this insidious Republican sheep-minded majority whose hostility to the U.S. Constitution is unprecedented in our 230-year history.

   Americans have had a bellyful of Bush's anti-democracy, totalitarian rule. It may take until November 2006 to change the leadership of the Republican juggernaut but as the evidence for jettisoning this despicable, gluttonous and corrupt Republican regime piles up the time has come to put the brakes on this unchecked abuse of office.

   The Zogby poll which is considered one of the most reliable is but one indicator that 2006 will be the year that will change the tone in Washington. This will be the defining moment when we the people can either restore democracy and preserve our civil liberties or cede them to the repressive and ever-increasingly hostile to democracy regime which seeks to take away, not expand, the rights of all citizens. The Bush chief goal is to wield absolute power and control by applying tenets and legislation that violate not only the letter of Constitutional law but the spirit of the law as well.

   There is still time, but don't expect any backbone from the swindlers and liars in the corrupt Republican-controlled U. S. Congress and their war-minded leader, G. W. Bush, whose priorities are endless tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of our population while gutting programs that benefit the welfare and security of our nation.

   Posted by richard38 at 12/27/2005 @ 1:29pm

7. Hey, Rio Bravo: if everyone here is so out of touch with reality, why do you keep coming back and posting? Is it missionary work? Are you civilizing the savages or saving souls? Or, perhaps given your psychological expertise- in particular, your ability to see the most "notable pathological liar" ever to sit in the Nation's White House, Bill Clinton, you are blending the practice of psychology with the use of an Ouija Board? What notes do you get on Rutherford B. Hayes in those sessions? I've always thought he was notably pathological, but I've never had the opportunity to analyze him. Clearly you have. Who's your medium? Or did you ascend into heaven to talk to him? Fill us in. We want to be as reality based as you.

   Posted by Legba at 12/27/2005 @ 1:35pm

8. I agree with Munich re: the media. A related example is what they report regarding Bush's apointees to the Supreme Court. It's basically abortion, abortion, abortion, Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade. Meanwhile, Roberts sails through, then Meiers, and now Alito - all jurists favorable to the expansive powers of the executive branch - coincidence? This is the only litmus test for Bush. While the press gets all worked up over red meat issues like abortion and gay rights, Bush is packing the court with judges who are more likely to rule in his favor on any cases litigating Bush's despotic powers he has granted himself. We better wise up with Alito.

   Posted by Hman23 at 12/27/2005 @ 1:53pm

9. That conservative Kool Aid ought to be classified as a Controlled Substance, since it's addictive and renders its users incapable of admitting that their beloved King George and his assorted ministers are the most corrupt and incompetent to occupy the White House since the Harding Administration. More, actually, since Harding didn't start a war.

   Posted by proudlib at 12/27/2005 @ 1:56pm

10. Rio can't seem to lose his hard-on from the Clinton years - I hear the only way to cure it is to use leaches.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/27/2005 @ 1:57pm

11. Bush has committed so many potentially impeachable offenses, it is very hard to keep count. And those are just the ones we know about. Now that the congress, the judiciary and the public at large have started suspect the motives and means of the administration, whistleblowers will be emboldened to come forth with evidence of executive office abuse of power. And it's about time.

    Posted by Geoduck at 12/27/2005 @ 2:01pm

12. I suppose that those who have had crushes on Bill Clinton will never forgive Clinton for preferring Monica Lewinsky. Nuts!

    Posted by jkrogman at 12/27/2005 @ 2:11pm

13. Hman, you are correct. the problem is that therer are so many demagogic issues being flogged by this mis-administration that it's difficult to figure out which are the stalking horses

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 2:12pm

14. Problem is that the VP would also need impeaching and would we really want the Speaker of the House as the President after that?

    Posted by gretchenart at 12/27/2005 @ 2:13pm

15. It's time to take a good look at the past, especially in reguards to the election processes and the abuses of the GOP and their King gw.

    Never felt comfortable with the fact that the powers that be (in need of impeachment) have never investigated the claims of election gerrymandering. This is more an afront to our constitution than most of the BS this administration and the lapdog GOP has refused to correct.

    Now we have a chance to rectify this we need to scream as loud as we can to get the word out that these violations to the american people shall not continue.

    Hopefully the next election will be one which truly guarantees a timely vote for all americans not just to those who support those with the power to manipulate our constitutional rights.

    The price we pay if we don't correct this is to be serfs to the new king.

    Posted by dycel8r at 12/27/2005 @ 2:27pm

16. There is still time, but don't expect any backbone from the swindlers and liars in the corrupt Republican-controlled U. S. Congress and their war-minded leader, G. W. Bush, whose priorities are endless tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of our population while gutting programs that benefit the welfare and security of our nation.

    Posted by RICHARD38 12/27/2005 @ 1:29pm

    They all live under the idea that anyone can be bought, a morality they embrace. GWB has been doing this since he was selected.

    Posted by zhong at 12/27/2005 @ 2:36pm

17. Lets see impeach gw, try cheeny for his role in the halliburton embezzelments, try condumlisa for ?, that leaves it to the speaker of the house frist who is currently under an indictment for insider trading (it amazes me that they tried and convected and put Martha in jail yet frist is still on the loose). Who does it fall to next the minority leader?

    Posted by dycel8r at 12/27/2005 @ 2:37pm

18. itaics missplacement, it should have stopped after richard38's tag

    Posted by zhong at 12/27/2005 @ 2:37pm

19. Cry, Cry, Cry, Moan and pout, stomp your feet. Five years now, and the left only knows how to hate George Bush. This impeach theme has been playing for 5 years and I'm sure it will play right up until the Republican successor to Bush takes office. You will be saying it as the troops begin coming home next year; as more and more people find new and higher paying jobs (forecast just released today based upon surveys with Hiring Managers), the stock market continuing to climb, housing starts (sorry no bubble) continuing to rise-November was a 6 year high, more conservative Federal Judges, more tax relief!, life is good when your not some whining liberal/progressive.

    I keep coming to this site just because it is an insight into an alternate universe.

    Keep dreaming though, as I have said before; hopefully while you folks are busy whining and even protesting, the real world keeps things going, producing the goods and services that keep our economy alive, defeating evil in the world, and seeking our better angels which you all not only don't recognize, most dont' even believe in them.

    Happy New Year

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 2:41pm

20. Alas, it seems likely that Mr Bush will get away with his crimes. As one of his predecessors put it :

    «Natürlich, das einfache Volk will keinen Krieg [...] Aber schließlich sind es die Führer eines Landes, die die Politik bestimmen, und es ist immer leicht, das Volk zum Mitmachen zu bringen, ob es sich nun um eine Demokratie, eine faschistische Diktatur, um ein Parlament oder eine kommunistische Diktatur handelt. [...] das Volk kann mit oder ohne Stimmrecht immer dazu gebracht werden, den Befehlen der Führer zu folgen. Das ist ganz einfach. Man braucht nichts zu tun, als dem Volk zu sagen, es würde angegriffen, und den Pazifisten ihren Mangel an Patriotismus vorzuwerfen und zu behaupten, sie brächten das Land in Gefahr. Diese Methode funktioniert in jedem Land. [Emphasis added.]

    History seems to indicate that the above technique is foolproof. The only reason Herr Göring ended up having to commit suicide in his prison cell was that his side lost the war ; otherwise his crimes would have been as naught. Mr Bush has indeed greatly weakened the United States, but these chickens will not come home to roost in the lifetime of his administration....

    Posted by mhenriday at 12/27/2005 @ 2:45pm

21. LL

    The differnce is now Dubya has not only broken the law, but has admited it, and is fact continuing to. Doesn't it bother you that he re-writes/ignores laws "as needed"?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/27/2005 @ 2:49pm

22. The differnce is now Dubya has not only broken the law, but has admited it, and is fact continuing to. Doesn't it bother you that he re-writes/ignores laws "as needed"?

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 12/27/2005 @ 2:49pm

    No, I want him to do everything he can to find, stop and especially kill the terrorists.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 2:51pm

23. We've got two posters here, Rio Bravo and Love Liberty, who as evangelical Christians believe that someday we're all going to wake up and find clothes and jewelry laying around because people have been "raptured" up to Heaven, saying that this subject is not "reality based." I find that funny, sad, pathetic and ironic.

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 2:58pm

24. Dycel, Frist is SENATE president pro temp, Hastert is speaker of the house.

    succession goes: Cheney, Hastert, Frist, then Condi, Snow, Rumsfeld etc

    not very encouraging is it?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 3:03pm

25. LL you really are the cluless one you are nothing more than a scared rabbit.

    Your exaltations are really nothing more than butting your head on reality and hiding in your fantasy world of misconception.

    You repeatedly profitise the mindless rightwing mantras while your world comes down around you and you smile that moronic grin of self-adulation do those glasses really have rose colored lenses or are they that hue of baby s--t brown.

    Yes this is a new year and it will a different world for you come Nov.

    LL we are all laughing at you!

    Posted by dycel8r at 12/27/2005 @ 3:04pm

26. We've got two posters here, Rio Bravo and Love Liberty, who as evangelical Christians believe that someday we're all going to wake up and find clothes and jewelry laying around because people have been "raptured" up to Heaven, saying that this subject is not "reality based." I find that funny, sad, pathetic and ironic.

    Posted by BBATTEN 12/27/2005 @ 2:58pm

    Bbatten,

    Perhaps you can enlighten we ignorant evangelicals about how liberalism only denigrates the beliefs of Christians who believe that their Bible is the word of God? I don't recall you and your "progressive" compatriots here having equally negative attitudes to those who may be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or another faith?

    No you "enlightened progressives" only find Evangelical Christians those who must be singled out, ridiculed, and scorned for our faith. Educate me please on how your progressive beliefs lead you to that kind of discrimination?

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 3:07pm

27. "The Zogby poll which is considered one of the most reliable is but one indicator that 2006 will be the year that will change the tone in Washington. This will be the defining moment"

    There was a defining moment in November 2004, and the Dems "blew it" - but more important, the public blew it. I am not optimistic for 2006, even as the media finally begins to paint the true picture of this rogue administration. The American public has got to be the dumbest electorate in the world, and I do not think that will change in the next year.

    Posted by johnny at 12/27/2005 @ 3:07pm

28. Thanks Johannesrolf they need to be put all in jail!

    Posted by dycel8r at 12/27/2005 @ 3:09pm

29. Yes this is a new year and it will a different world for you come Nov.

    LL we are all laughing at you!

    Posted by DYCEL8R 12/27/2005 @ 3:04pm

    I hope you keep laughing just like you all did last year prior to the election. Being laughed at by the politically foolish is hardly a badge of dishonor; quite the contrary.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 3:09pm

30. Love Liberty: "No, I want him to do everything he can to find, stop and especially kill the terrorists."

    As I suspected, Love Liberty and many like him don't understand that in the United States, we follow the constitution and the law. They are informed by a magical belief that they are in contact with the creator of the universe. Their "faith" teaches them to follow the leader, as opposed to the law. And, somehow, they have forgotten that just 5 or 6 years ago, all of their leaders were pontificating on the "rule of law" and how it is unamerican to ignore it. Don't you remember your evangelical political leaders pious pronouncements about the primacy of the law? Remember how you couldn't let Clinton get away with lying about a blowjob because of the "rule of law?" Please don't make me pull up some of their quotes. I've done that enough.

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 3:09pm

31. Love Liberty: "No you "enlightened progressives" only find Evangelical Christians those who must be singled out, ridiculed, and scorned for our faith. Educate me please on how your progressive beliefs lead you to that kind of discrimination?"

    It's very simple really. You are a hypocrite. You agreed that the rule of law was important when Clinton was president, and you don't think it's important now that Bush is president.

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 3:13pm

32. LL:

    Two questions--

    1) Where did you get your numbers on the strong state of the economy?

    2) Does Bush's dictatorial reach really not bother you even a little?

    Posted by rain man at 12/27/2005 @ 3:13pm

33. Yes, the Bush haters really have momentum now! LOL

    December 21, 2005--The President's Sunday night speech has increased the nation's confidence concerning the situation in Iraq and the War on Terror. Confidence is up among Republicans and unaffiliateds, but not among Democrats.

    Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That's up from 44% immediately preceding the speech. It's also the highest level of confidence in more than a year.

    Just 25% of Americans believe the terrorists are winning. Rasmussen Reports has asked this survey question more than 70 times over the past two years. Just once, in April 2004, has a smaller percentage of Americans believed that the terrorists were winning. When December began, 28% believed the terrorists were winning.

    Forty percent (40%) of Americans now give the President good or excellent marks for handling the situation in Iraq. That's up from 35% before the speech.

    The number giving the President poor marks on Iraq declined to 39% from 42%. This is the first time all year that the number giving the President good or excellent marks has matched the number saying poor.

    Forty-two percent (42%) now say things will get better in Iraq over the next six months. That's up from 37% before the speech. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say things will get worse.

    At the beginning of 2005, just 28% of Americans thought the situation in Iraq would get better over the next six month. A Rasmussen Reports survey at the time found that 50% of Americans expected things to get worse.

    Huge partisan divisions on questions dealing with Iraq remain. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans believe the U.S. and its allies are winning. That's up from 71% before the speech.

    Just 25% of Democrats share that view (little changed from 24% before the speech). Forty percent (40%) of Democrats believe the terrorists are winning.

    Among those those not affiliated with either major party, 44% now say the U.S. and its allies are winning. That's up nine points from 35% before the speech.

    Twenty-four percent (24%) of unaffiliateds take the opposite view and say the terrorists are winning. That's down from 27% before the speech

    http://tinyurl.co.uk/c5r3 [url]

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 3:16pm

34. And the economy

    Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Americans rate the U.S. economy as good or excellent. That's up from 33% a month ago and 33% a year ago.

    Forty-six percent (46%) of men rate the economy good or excellent along with 29% of women.

    Thirty-four percent (34%) of all adults say the economy is in fair condition while 27% say poor.

    Forty-nine percent (49%) of Investors rate the economy as good or excellent. That's up from 42% a month ago and 41% a year ago.

    Thirty-one percent (31%) of Investors rate the economy as fair while 20% say poor.

    same resource as the source for the President's numbers, Rasmussen Poll, this one dated 12/27/05

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 3:19pm

35. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY

    [ Perhaps you can enlighten we ignorant evangelicals about how liberalism only denigrates the beliefs of Christians who believe that their Bible is the word of God? I don't recall you and your "progressive" compatriots here having equally negative attitudes to those who may be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or another faith?

    No you "enlightened progressives" only find Evangelical Christians those who must be singled out, ridiculed, and scorned for our faith. Educate me please on how your progressive beliefs lead you to that kind of discrimination? ]

    You really are the antichrist you beleive in the "Bible" yet refuse to accept the fact that the Bible has been the cause of more death and misery, in Gods name you create misery and laugh at those in need while taking money for helping those in need to finance your personal life style got to love that Dodge Hemi.

    Must have been estatic when cheeny voted to balance the budget with cuts medicare, welfare and the needy.

    You are indeed one of the ultimate hypocrites.

    Posted by dycel8r at 12/27/2005 @ 3:21pm

36. RIO BRAVO:

    Okay, so enlighten us. Katrina has linked to constitutional scholars, law professors, intelligence professionals, et. al. who make clear and concise arguments that clearly show how and why they think President Bush has broken the law, including conservative publications like Barron's (they must be the "leftwing nuts" you're talking about). Since you clearly think you have a stronger grasp on the current situtation than all the citations, let's see your relevant arguments (sorry, ad hominim hysteria doesn't count).

    See, that's how it works.

    Whenever you're ready...

    Posted by jvillano at 12/27/2005 @ 3:22pm

37. LL,

    Your statistics are a little depressing, but I'm sure they're spinning quite effectively in your mind. They all point to negatives! You seem content that things are not quite as negative as they were one week ago that things are good. I'm glad you can do that. I'm glad you can also take heart in the fact that investors as a group seem happier with the country than the rest of us. After all, it is the Christmas season and what would Christmas be without a little Republican class warfare in which the investing class tells the working class what it wants and what it needs. So, on behalf of the working class, thank you for telling me that everything I see in your numbers is wrong.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 3:26pm

38. I meant to write:

    "You seem content that (since) things are not quite as negative as they were one week ago (then) things are good."

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 3:28pm

39. in Gods name you create misery and laugh at those in need while taking money for helping those in need to finance your personal life style got to love that Dodge Hemi.

    You are indeed one of the ultimate hypocrites.

    Posted by DYCEL8R 12/27/2005 @ 3:21pm

    What an obnoxious self imposed judge you are! You know nothing of my ministry or personal finances, yet you make your assumptions. Not that you would believe what I write but you are absolutely wrong.

    I take no money from the ministry (except the gas money that two families provide to us). We ask for no tithes or offerings, either from the church or from the poor when we give them food and clothing.

    My truck is paid for, not by ministry money, but because we refinanced our house and paid cash for the truck. Our finances are by my wife's job, my part time income from my business, and living frugally. I haven't had a vacation in 13 years. I have no real savings (we used it all for the ministry). We have our home (with it's house payment). Our other 2 cars, one 14 years old, the other 5 years old are both paid for.

    I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy and vitriol of leftists like yourself. You constantly negatively judge Christians without any basis of fact. The only freedom of expression and lifestyle you endorse is for those who agree with you.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 3:30pm

40. TJB, Try this one then

    Report: Consumer sentiment gains

    Falling gasoline prices, continued job growth push Michigan index well above analysts' expectations. December 9, 2005: 10:52 AM EST

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Consumer sentiment improved in early December more than economists had expected, helped by falling gasoline prices and continuing job growth, a report showed Friday.

    The University of Michigan's preliminary December index of consumer sentiment rose to 88.7 from November's final reading of 81.6, according to sources who saw the subscription-only report.

    Economists polled by Reuters on average had predicted an increase to 85.5.

    The survey's expectations component increased sharply to 77.3 for early December from 69.6 in November.

    The index of current conditions rose to 106.6 from 100.2 in November.

    U.S. gasoline prices have fallen to a six-month low after setting a record high of $3.07 a gallon in early September due to supply disruption caused by Hurricane Katrina.

    Average retail gasoline prices decreased for a ninth consecutive week to $2.15 a gallon, down 0.7 cent from a week early but up 24 cents from a year ago, the U.S. government said Monday.

    Last week, U.S. employers added 210,000 jobs in November with the jobless rate holding steady at 5 percent, the government said.

    "The labor market has been robust. In the last month, we got a good payrolls report so that probably helped," said Elisabeth Denison, economist at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein in New York.

    Confidence measures are often used as a gauge of future retail sales. Consumer spending makes up roughly two-thirds of overall U.S. economic activity, and is seen as an indication of strength or weakness in economic growth.

    However, the connection between consumer confidence and spending has weakened in recent years. Retail sales have been sturdy despite intermittent declines in confidence.

    U.S. retailers reported a brisk start to the holiday shopping season at the end of November.

    Find this article at: http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/09/news/economy/michigan_consumer.reut

    Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 3:34pm

41. As usual when RB and LL join in, the theme shifts to their stupid rants about Clinton, liberals, etc.

    Back to the point.

    Bush will not be impeached by the current Congress! If a sufficient number of Democrats and moderate Republicans are elected in 2006, and Bush has not dissolved Congress by then, it's just possible that a bill of impeachment will be voted. (Not likely as things stand, but possible)

    However, Bush will not spend a day in prison even if convicted because Cheney, the new dictator, will pardon him. He'll even appoint a buddy (maybe Rummy) as VP. Convict Cheney too, and Rummy will pardon him and make someone like DeLay VP.

    The point-- We must amend the Constitution so that our President doesn't have such broad pardoning powers. Bush could be readying a pardon for Libby right now - even though Bush says he's not guilty, a bit of prejudging. Presidents should not pardon appointed (by them or their appointees) officials for acts committed during and as part of their duties - as they have interpreted them.

    Appointed Presidents (like Ford -- remember him) should not be able to pardon those who appointed them. Perhaps, no pardon should be possible for an impeached President.

    By now, you have the general idea.

    Abuse of Presidential pardon power is a travesty and should be curtailed.

    Posted by adr at 12/27/2005 @ 3:40pm

42. LL you continue to miss the point it is not the lefties as you keep blaming them for not believing in your cause its your inability to see the real situation in the world.

    You repeatly use your faith to excuse those in power while they cause real misery and then support them as if the political party you support means more to you than doing the will of christ.

    That in itself is hypocracy, you are an easy mark your beliefs are shallow and stroke only your own desires. Is this because you feel guilty for the misery your "righties" create.

    Why do you support those who steal from those in need to give to those who squander?

    Posted by dycel8r at 12/27/2005 @ 3:41pm

43. LL wrote: No, I want him to do everything he can to find, stop and especially kill the terrorists.

    At what point does it stop? Can he spy on Muslim communities in Michigan? Is that okay? What about a few late night "grab and bag" kidnappings to pump people for info? If they don't talk, can the government pull out a few fingernails? What if it's your neighbor? Or someone in your family who goes to an middle eastern dentist? Can they be nabbed from their home just to make sure they don't know anything? What if we've got a guy, and we "know" he knows something? Can the president call for his assassination? And his family also? They might know something too, ya know.

    Don't you understand the very reason we have the system we have is to prevent abuses by our political leadership? And the reason we have these boundaries is because there was ample evidence that "absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

    Look, we all want to live lives of peace, and we realize the terrorists must be dealt with. But the people on this blog want to know how far do the powers that people advocate for the president go? Extrajudicial wiretappings clearly seem okay to you. What about extrajudicial kidnapping? Extrajudicial torture? Extrajudicial assassination?

    Based on the current arguments by John Yoo and Roberto Gonzalez, genocide would be permissable in a world where the president is allowed to do anything. So where does it stop and who decides? Our problem is that we all thought the boundries were clearly drawn, but apparently the conservatives disagree. So where ARE the lines? Rather than demogauging about terrorists and the completely unrelated President Clinton, why won't a single conservative tell me where those lines are drawn? If you weren't aware, that's what we're angry about. Do you really won't a world where a leader can claim unlimited power in a war of undetermined goals and length?

    Because if you do, don't you dare tell me you aren't asking for a king, because that's exactly what you want, and you're living in the wrong country.

    So where do you draw the line? And remember: The lines have to apply to every president, not just Connecticut prep-school cheerleaders turned Texas wannabe cowboys.

    Posted by jvillano at 12/27/2005 @ 3:44pm

44. KVH This blog is not even reality based and seems offered up only to feed the psychosis of conspiracy theorist among the leftwing nuts! The only impeachment that is even breaking the surface of the mainstream is the second president to be impeached in office and how history is now already handling the fact. That would be the record of the dishonorable W.J.Clinton the most notable pathological liar to inhabit the nations White House whose perfidy is exceeded only by his spouse's continual flow of socialistic propoganda! There is nothing factually debateable, only irrational conjecture. Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/27/2005 @ 1:10pm

    The only irrational conjecture comes from YOU RIO BRAVO, along with a massive dose of Right wing-nut denial. Apparently you don't understand the words "Break-the-Law" or is it that you are more comfortable in denying it? Take a look at the guts (i.e. provisions) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and just see if your simple mind can deduce that maybe, just maybe, your old boy GWB broke the law. Actually, any damn fool can see it, and so should you. The facts are clear, accept it. GWB is now entirely indefensible. He is as radioactive as his equally grimy Vice-President if not more so.

    No one is letting Clinton off the hook: he did some very stupid things involving one Monica L. and he and his political party paid a dear price for it. But neither Clinton nor any other US Prez is or ever was an out-and-out power monger and "pathogogical liar" to the extent of GWB. He has taken Constitutional defiance and criminal contempt to Everest-like heights in a breath taking fashion. He is The Law unto Himself. He is, in fact, the Supreme Sultan of Sleeze and the entire world understands this. So maybe it's time for you to face the music, too. You sound utterly ridiculous, whiny, and pathetic trying to do otherwise.

    Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 3:48pm

45. Calling RB and LL names will not advance the tone of our discussion or change anyone's opinions (except possibly some of ours regarding the poster).

    Let's assume that they (possibly along with GWB) are sincere but misguided souls who for some difficult to imagine reason like to hang out with very unlike-minded people and rant their ravings on us.

    The issue here is not religion or taxes or welfare. It's the so-called Iraq war (really the Iraq occupation) and the so-called "war" on terrorism -- actually a multi-pronged effort to reduce the incidence of terrorism worldwide, but especially in the U.S.

    GWB used the latter to justify the former. He has also used the latter to justify circumventing very clear law to spy on our citizens. Those who cheer such behavior should go back and study history very carefully. They should also note that GWB had lawful means to accomplish the same ends.

    Let's be very clear about Bush's entire operation, whether it's invading Iraq (clear violation of international law) or spying on Americans (clear violation of U.S. law). His excuse is simple.

    THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS!!!!

    That is the slipperiest of slopes and can lead to a complete authoritarian dictatorship or some other equally repugnant result. This is the one idea that must be vigorously opposed by every true American of any political persuasion or religion or ethnicity. History always judges such abuses sharply.

    It's time for Congress to assert its equality with the executive. Even the Constitution puts Congress in Article I, before the executive.

    Posted by adr at 12/27/2005 @ 3:52pm

46. The labor market has been robust. In the last month, we got a good payrolls report so that probably helped," said Elisabeth Denison, economist at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein in New York. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/27/2005 @ 3:34pm

    Right. The labor market is indeed "robust" if you count all those burger-flipping "positions" as real wage-earner type jobs. Maybe the only thing really robust is the ripe mellon atop your shoulders. Get real, man.

    Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 3:54pm

47. What an obnoxious self imposed judge you are!

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/27/2005 @ 3:30pm

    Are you speaking from experience Liberty?

    Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 3:57pm

48. Cry, Cry, Cry, Moan and pout, stomp your feet.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/27/2005 @ 2:41pm

    The conservative polka?

    Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 4:02pm

49. Calling RB and LL names will not advance the tone of our discussion or change anyone's opinions (except possibly some of ours regarding the poster). Posted by ADR 12/27/2005 @ 3:52pm

    So what do you propose to do, articulate gracefully and convert the unbelievers of the world? That strategy has and will never work with people who deny the truth. The Bush crowd is bent on destroying our form of government and its made a pretty good dent in doing so in case you havn't noticed recently. This is a policical blog, not a discourse on Roberts Rules of Order.

    Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 4:03pm

50. or this from ABC/Washington Post December 14th

    PERSONAL FINANCES -- Fifty-seven percent say their own finances are excellent or good; it was 56 percent last week. The best was 70 percent on Aug. 30, 1998, matched in January 2000. The worst was 42 percent on March 14, 1993.

    Just released today by the Richmond 5th Dist Fed Reserve Bank VA

    Summary December 2005 The Fifth District economy continued to move forward at a steady pace in recent weeks, with notable improvement in labor markets and continued increases in real estate activity, despite a modest deceleration in home prices. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic's (BLS) latest survey of businesses, Fifth District payrolls expanded at a solid 2.0 percent clip in October. In line with these readings, results from BLS's October household survey also suggested sound employment conditions, with the jobless rate declining 0.1 percent to 4.8 percent. Steady job growth over the last year continued to boost incomes at District households. In the second quarter, personal income expanded 4.5 percent compared to a year earlier.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 4:07pm

51. Question: Will impeachment of Bush leave us with President Cheney, Hastert, Stevens, Rice? Sadly, I guess I understand now why the dems have been hesitant to support this movement!!! Read below and weep:

    [From www.infoplease.com] Prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, there was no provision for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. When a president died in office, the vice president succeeded him, and the vice presidency then remained vacant. The first vice president to take office under the new procedure was Gerald Ford, who was nominated by Nixon on Oct. 12, 1973, and confirmed by Congress the following Dec. 6. [Would Bush nominate Harriet Myers again???????]

    * The Vice President Richard Cheney * Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert * President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens * Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice * Secretary of the Treasury John Snow * Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld * Attorney General Alberto Gonzales * Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton * Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns * Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2 * Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3 * Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt * Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson * Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta * Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman * Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings * Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson * Secretary of Homeland Security4 Michael Chertoff

    NOTE: An official cannot succeed to the Presidency unless that person meets the Constitutional requirements. 1. The president pro tempore presides over the Senate when the vice president is absent. By tradition the position is held by the senior member of the majority party. 2. Carlos Gutierrez was born in Cuba and is ineligible. 3. Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan and is ineligible. 4. In late July 2005, the Senate passed a bill moving the Homeland Security secretary to number 8 on the list. The bill is awaiting House approval.

    Posted by lanimay at 12/27/2005 @ 4:07pm

52. Oh? Paul Krugman call this the "jobless recovery" with good reason. We have been losing thousands of jobs overseas for umm, about five years now and we have nowhere, nohow replaced those with job of comparable wages and benefits. For one thing, employers are very reluctant to give out/guarantee family heath care when it continues to rise double-digit every year. Therefore net, we have lost alot of ground despite having added thousands of job these last few years. The key word here is "net" decrease, both in job quantity and particularly in job quality.

    Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 4:14pm

53. LL:

    [ "Perhaps you can enlighten we ignorant evangelicals about how liberalism only denigrates the beliefs of Christians who believe that their Bible is the word of God? I don't recall you and your "progressive" compatriots here having equally negative attitudes to those who may be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or another faith?"

    Sure, why not. ALL organized religion is an abomination to the free thinker.

    Posted by doumer at 12/27/2005 @ 4:20pm

54. I leave you all now to continue your communal Bush outrage. I have sons and daughter-in-laws to visit.

    It would be a wonderful dream if progressives/liberals could one day wake up without this consuming belief that Bush and conservatives are evil. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime though.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 4:23pm

55. Doumer,

    Ah, a equal opportunity hater; it's your bondage, I hope you enjoy it.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/27/2005 @ 4:24pm

56. LL:

    I guess anyone can spin negative numbers!!!

    I can play too! Re housing -

    WASHINGTON - The Commerce Department unveiled fresh data Friday suggesting the sizzling housing market is indeed cooling off.

    Sales of new homes plunged in November by the largest amount in nearly 12 years, providing the most dramatic evidence yet that the red hot housing market over the last five years is losing steam.

    New single-family homes were sold at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.245 million units last month, a drop of 11.3 percent from October, when sales had surged to an all-time high.

    "This is consistent with our view that the housing market is likely to continue to moderate in the coming months. But ... home sales are historically pretty strong," said Patrick Fearon, senior economist at A. G. Edwards and Sons in St. Louis.

    Last month's decline was even bigger than the 8.7 percent drop-off that Wall Street analysts had been expecting. While sales of both new and existing homes are still on track to set records for a fifth straight year in 2005, analysts are forecasting sales will decline in 2006 as the housing boom quiets down.

    Sales of existing homes dropped nearly 3 percent for the month of October, the National Association of Realtors reported late last month. That decline pushed the number of unsold homes to 2.87 million, the highest level in more than 19 years. Sales of existing homes outpace those of new homes by a rate of nearly 6 to 1.

    "The data must be considered confirmation of a clear slowing in the housing sector," said Alan Ruskin, research director at 4CAST Ltd.

    The housing market has had a charmed run in recent years, buoyed by a sustained period of low home mortgage rates.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10585961/

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/27/2005 @ 4:24pm

57. Reading the ultra-liberal rant is less than enjoyable. It is the same song, only the fifth stanza. The chorus never changes--we hate President Bush. Face it ladies and gentlemen--President Bush will go down as the first great leader of the 21st century and all the ultra rants will be buried in the sand like so many of Saddam's unfortunate victims. But for President Bush and the leadership he is displaying more innocent victims would be dead today, more terrorist activity going on in the world etc. You should all simply take a deep breath, look to God and thank Him that you are able to say the absurd things you do. You should also pick up a copy of The Constitution as edited by Edwin Meese (and the Heritage Foundation). It is eye opening (or it most certainly will be to you ultra's)in explaining the document which obviously many of you don't know the first thing about!

    Posted by fourBush at 12/27/2005 @ 4:28pm

58. Freiheit, I guess we will see in November who is destoying what.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/27/2005 @ 4:28pm

59. frei, that's a bit like saying the terrorists hate us for our values, which is not true, they hate us for our imperialistic policies.

    now to Bush, yes I hate him, but it is for his policies, his lies, his contempt for laws and the constitution,

    that we finally have a segment of the population that speaks out against this would be Caligula is cause for celebration, I'm not sorry it makes you sad.

    what makes ME sad is the apologies for torture, war and destruction, and the endless lies

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 4:28pm

60. Fourflush:" more innocent victims would be dead today

    more than the 30,000 Iraqis and the 2,000 dead american soldiers, really?

    and Edwin Meese? you've got to be kidding, here's a litt;e Wikipedia:

    Accusations of ethical violations dogged Meese's tenure at Justice. He was the subject of investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel on two occasions; neither of these investigations resulted in charges being presented to a grand jury. Nevertheless, Meese's critics continue to charge corruption.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 4:32pm

61. Love Liberty:

    The government has hijacked all the numbers. Those that you are quoting are totally bogus. This is the Smoke & Mirrors economy, and Greenspan is the head cheerleader. Guess what, he's resigning next month. Guess what follows that? It's not pretty when the real world catches up with the lies. All of it is built on lies and inflated fiat. The Stock Market is an illusion. Put all of your money there, and soon you will see what I mean. This Administration has all of the credibility of "Baghdad Bob." Nothing that they say is true. Literally nothing.

    Posted by plunger at 12/27/2005 @ 4:36pm

62. FOURBUSH - given that Bush is the first president in the 21st century, the "first great leader" is a pretty easy title to bestow upon him within five years isn't it? The only thing I am thankful for is the 22nd Amendment. I'll be sure to check out Meese's "edited" version of the Constitution too. LOL - I thought you conservatives were strict constructionalists - editing the Constitution! That is rich! So is what Bush is doing to the 4th Amendment part of that edited version? - you know, the footnote that says "the foregoing liberties of the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures do not apply to the actions of the president."

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/27/2005 @ 4:38pm

63. Freiheit - Merry Christmas.

    It might be a little easier to withhold criticism of Bush from "dawn to dusk" if he did not provide so much fodder. We should pull punches simply because instead of being a little bit of a disaster, he is a major sidaster? Which "most Americans" are you speaking of anyway? The negative numbers in LL's polling data? Sorry, but most Americans think Bush IS a disaster.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/27/2005 @ 4:45pm

64. How sad for the left that now the chorus is for impeachment... You know, it is only my opinion, but I think it is hatred of George W. Bush that is destroying the American left. Please, keep it up.Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 4:21pm

    I look at this quite differently. This is a catalyst for censure or impeachment for any and all Americans repelled by: 1) The needless, horrific War in Iraq and, 2) recent revelations about domestic spying by the Bush administration. This is not a "lefty" vs. "righty" issue, although the Right would like to make it so and make that stick forever, amen. It actually is a "right vs. wrong" issue, a "law has been broken" issue, and not just any law, but a most important protection under the U.S. Constitution (i.e. a 4th Amendment right). Hence, anyone can and should identify with this.

    Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 4:46pm

65. Or, like so much else, it is all just about undermining Bush. Pssst: that's what it looks like...

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 4:57pm

    It should. He's doing it to himself.

    Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 4:58pm

66. Love Liberty sure knows how to crank out the pro-Bush psuedo-statistics, but a couple of things don't make sense to me. I'm not sure which Fox news program or Townhall pundit LL uses to gather all these fine numbers, but lets just go to our own government: According to the government, poverty levels and rates have increased every year since 2000, the spending power of the average American has declined, average wages have declined, Americans are in more debt, and bankruptcy filings are at an all-time high. In addition, Bush was not only the first President since Hoover to post a net decline in jobs in his first term, but will be the first 2-termer in history to possibly post a net decline in jobs -- we need at least 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with population growth -- that 200,000 new jobs LL cited somewhere would have been Clinton's worst job creation month in his entire 8 years.

    I think the problem for righties is that their information sources are fooling them by using corporate profits and the GDP as an economic indicator to the exclusion of more pertinent data. Another bit of statistical data I find ironic is abortion rates -- LL and Rio probably voted for Bush partly because of the abortion issue. But, abortion rates have been rising ever since Bush took office because they follow poverty rates. Abortion rates dropped every year under Clinton until they reached a 25-year low in 2000. Nice going, evangelicals. You brought about more abortions.

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 5:00pm

67. Here we are in Poland in 1938, but the invader isn't coming from across the border, he and the military /industrial complex, with more than a dash of religous fanaticism, are poised to continue the dictatorship IF WE LET THEM! Fight the fight like never before, contact your reps and senators every day.....every day. Bush MUST go.

    Posted by jake4ben at 12/27/2005 @ 5:04pm

68. Back to the topic at hand: I believe one of Nixon's articles of impeachment involved using the nation's intelligence apparatus for political purposes. We've got a lot more of that today. Clinton's, of course, were all related to untruthful statements which may or may not have been perjury and obstruction of justice. We've got an abundance of such things on much more important matters today. Let's add the unauthorized transfer of $700 million from Afganistan to Iraq, lying to Congress about the cost of legislation and preventing a public servant from reporting the true cost, outing a CIA operative and obstructing justice in the following investigation and breaking Federal and International laws regarding the treatment of prisoners. And, if all of that were not enough, now we have breaking Federal wiretapping laws.

    Bush supporters: you spent the 8 years of Clinton honking and braying about the sanctity of the law. Remember?

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 5:09pm

69. Ah, a equal opportunity hater; it's your bondage, I hope you enjoy it.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/27/2005 @ 4:24pm

    Liberty!

    can't you even take off your blinders of hate for the holidays. scuse me... for christmas.

    no peace on earth?

    no good will to men?

    how anti-christian.

    Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 5:12pm

70. FREIHEIT:

    You said:

    Bbatten, Thanks, I didn't know job creation was a function of the US presidency. Oh, wait, that's because it isn't.

    My response:

    Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of the president being the head of his party. You misunderstand that politics and economics are inexorably linked. When a person is elected president and there is a concomitant majority (even simple) in both houses of congress, that essentially leads to a de facto adoption of the economic and political platform the president prefers. Hence we had enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest of citizens, and a considerable loosening on the laws of expatriating profits in order to escape taxation, both corpoarate and individual. Your understanding of economics is sophomoric and naive at best... ignorant and destructive in point of fact.

    Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 5:13pm

71. Bbatten, Thanks, I didn't know job creation was a function of the US presidency. Oh, wait, that's because it isn't.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 5:06pm

    I think he was commenting on liberty's use of economic data to defend our fearless leader.

    May I humbly suggest "Posted" by Love Liberty. Have a nice day.

    Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 5:15pm

72. Freiheit: "Bbatten, Thanks, I didn't know job creation was a function of the US presidency. Oh, wait, that's because it isn't."

    Then, why does Bush cite job creation numbers (when he finds them) as a success? Why does Forbes Magazine include job creation numbers on its grand chart of Presidential success? Does a given administration's economic policies have anything to do with the nation's economy? Of course they do. The point is that Bush's economic policies do not lead to sufficient job creation -- or do you think job creation is something that happens magically -- maybe God decree's that there will be more jobs, something like that.

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 5:15pm

73. Reading the ultra-liberal rant is less than enjoyable. It is the same song, only the fifth stanza. The chorus never changes--we hate President Bush. Face it ladies and gentlemen--President Bush will go down as the first great leader of the 21st century and all the ultra rants will be buried in the sand like so many of Saddam's unfortunate victims. But for President Bush and the leadership he is displaying more innocent victims would be dead today, more terrorist activity going on in the world etc. You should all simply take a deep breath, look to God and thank Him that you are able to say the absurd things you do. You should also pick up a copy of The Constitution as edited by Edwin Meese (and the Heritage Foundation). It is eye opening (or it most certainly will be to you ultra's)in explaining the document which obviously many of you don't know the first thing about! Posted by FOURBUSH 12/27/2005 @ 4:28pm

    Fourbush: Your words are frightening: Edwin Meese??!! Tell me this: are the actions of the President -- Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Neptunian, whatever, subject to the U.S. Constitution and laws passed by Congress or is he above them?

    Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 5:24pm

74. Ah, a equal opportunity hater; it's your bondage, I hope you enjoy it.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/27/2005 @ 4:24pm

    LL, did I type the word "hate" anywhere in my short post. I don't hate anyone...anything. The fact that I don't agree with your belief system certainly does not equate to my hating you does it? Perhaps by the rules governing your religion this is normal and acceptable, but not in my world. Too black and white for my world.

    Spiritual philosophies aside, can you honestly state that you have absolultely no problem with the direction this country is heading with bush at the helm?

    Posted by doumer at 12/27/2005 @ 5:25pm

75. Love Liberty thinks you're going to spend an eternity in hell and that you deserve it. AND, he thinks you're a hater. AND, I'm sure he sees no irony in all of this.

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 5:29pm

76. BBATTEN,

    Didn't you get your job through prayer? Heck, my job, wife, house, even my reserved seat at Table 33 in Heaven that includes Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, James Dean, and John Lennon. Bet LL hasn't got crap for a table in the big H.

    FREI,

    Oh, dude. Christmas blues gotcha down? Pitchin' a little fit about us powerless little lefty trolls? All we's got is our words, FREI. And a dream. A humble little dream in which all the people of the world could hold hands and sing together. Sing it with me, FREI:

    "Impeachment, Impeachment [you know the words--join in!] The futile cry from the feeble Left. Impeachment, Impeachment It's all that those silly librals got left. Impeachment, Impeachment We're sick and tired of their whining. Impeachment, Impeachment So much worry over a little spying."

    Happy Day After Kwanzaa!

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 5:29pm

77. Impeachment.......... we'd jump feom the frying pan into the fire.... Cheney????, Hastert????

    Posted by werner at 12/27/2005 @ 5:33pm

78. Why is pointing out the many failures of Bush equated with "hating" Bush? Now, I remember some years back, when conservatives just hated Bill Clinton -- they freely admitted that they hated him; they called him rapist, murderer, cocaine trafficer, warmonger, etc. But, when pressed on what Clinton policy they thought to be a failure, they often couldn't come up with much because the Clinton years were such a success in economic terms. So, it seemed to me that they just hated Clinton. These days, you can like Bush personally and still sit there reciting the many failures of his administration. You don't need to hate -- just cite facts. Why does citing the facts make one a hater?

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 5:33pm

79. My underlying point is that the left's hatred of Bush (and cries for Impeachment!) has it preoccupied with his destruction. That hatred of Bush is destroying the effectiveness of the left. Now, I don't have a problem with that. But a few of the other bloggers here might. Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 5:26pm

    Freiheit: whether one hates GWB or not isn't the issue. If he has broken the law he has committed an impeachable offense. The U.S. Constitution is very clear on this. This should be an issue of grave concern for ALL Americans.

    Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 5:33pm

80. Freiheit: "Bbatten, Thanks, I didn't know job creation was a function of the US presidency. Oh, wait, that's because it isn't."

    Freiheit: "And don't jump on me about the government not having a role because we both know it does."

    One of us is a little confused, I think.

    Werner: Bush will never be impeached without a Democratic-controlled House. Cheney could and should be impeached right along with him for obstruction of justice and making false statements to Congress. That would make Nancy Pelosi President of the United States! A man can dream...

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 5:37pm

81. Frei, you are a hypocritical bastard, you lack moral compass.

    Bush came out of his rathole the other day to trumpet the job numbers, turned on his heels and went back to the rock from under which he crawled from. a 2 and a half minute speech. I didn't see your post commenting on that speech or telling the president that he has little to do with them.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 5:37pm

82. My underlying point is that the left's hatred of Bush (and cries for Impeachment!) has it preoccupied with his destruction. That hatred of Bush is destroying the effectiveness of the left. Now, I don't have a problem with that. But a few of the other bloggers here might.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 5:26pm

    Interesting!

    Did we execute Tookie because we hated him or because he murdered someone and execution was a legal punishment?

    I didn't really know the guy well enough to hate him. And, I don't believe in capitol punishment. But I think the guy should be punished for his crime. So my choice is to take political action to change the things I see as wrongs and find justice in a path seeded with injustice. That process is legal and one hundred percent all American

    But when that process applies to the president, you see that as hate.

    Dude, you are wearing the same blinders as Liberty

    Perhaps the hate you sense in me has a source a little closer to your home

    Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 5:39pm

83. "I'm sad that every liberal I encounter is negative"

    Freiheit: Far better to be negative and moral than fearful and all trusting IMO.

    Posted by doumer at 12/27/2005 @ 5:39pm

84. Freiheit: "As I pointed out, similar activity under the Carter and Clinton administrations get scant attention."

    The right-wing story about Eshalon during the Clinton adminsitration is a lie. According to NSA records and the Justice Department, the Clinton administration followed the rules of FISA to the letter. And, I would point out to you that Clinton was under constant scrutiny on privacy issues. There was a full-blown conservative hoax related to privacy -- it was called "Filegate" and it had conservatives crying and screaming about privacy until they were blue in the face.

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 5:40pm

85. "Impeachment, Impeachment [you know the words--join in!] The futile cry from the feeble Left. Impeachment, Impeachment It's all that those silly librals got left. Impeachment, Impeachment We're sick and tired of their whining. Impeachment, Impeachment So much worry over a little spying." Happy Day After Kwanzaa Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/27/2005 @ 5:29pm

    Freiheit: TJ is merely trying to keep you in the merry mood of The Season. Don't take his little ditty quite so seriously.

    Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 5:42pm

86. DOWNWITHW, But I contend that it is an issue of grave concern to the left only because it can undermine GW Bush. As I pointed out, similar activity under the Carter and Clinton administrations get scant attention. Kind of like "voter fraud" investigations after democrats win elections...

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 5:37pm

    If there was similar activity by the clinton and carter administrations then there must be a wing nut blog out there that details the events ad nauseum.

    Pehaps you could give us a link.

    or two.

    Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 5:43pm

87. ALL you right wing parrots are singing from the same sheet, I mean shit. it's the cosi fan tutti defense, they all do it. pretty transparent dodge that is. and that poor Bush fellow, those mean lefties hate him so much. the question is not why do the left hate him, we've been pretty specific about it. no, the question is why do you righties LOVE this schmuck so much? or is it the office of president that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 5:49pm

88. DOWNWITHW, But I contend that it is an issue of grave concern to the left only because it can undermine GW Bush. As I pointed out, similar activity under the Carter and Clinton administrations get scant attention. Kind of like "voter fraud" investigations after democrats win elections...Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 5:37pm

    FREIHEIT: if I recall correctly Clinton was impeached for his bout of bimboistic stupidity. As for Carter, I don't think anything went right for him in his four years. But I do believe in any event he was (and is) an honest man. He certainly is an empathic individual.

    Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 5:49pm

89. Freiheit: "I'm sad that every liberal I encounter is negative"

    I'm sad and more than a little concerned that every conservative I meet these days tries to find ways to justify or explain away torture, lawbreaking, wholesale killing and lying.

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 5:49pm

90. I'm sad and more than a little concerned that every conservative I meet these days tries to find ways to justify or explain away torture, lawbreaking, wholesale killing and lying. Posted by BBATTEN 12/27/2005 @ 5:49pm

    Amen.

    Posted by DownWithW at 12/27/2005 @ 5:55pm

91. JohanesRolf, that is the question -- why do they love him so much? He's the epitomy of aristocracy. He's never excelled or even succeeded at anything that wasn't bought for him. He's had everything given to him every step of the way. Legacy at prep school, legacy at Yale, special deal at Harvard, special deal to evade Nam, millions in free Saudi money to start businesses which failed and now spectacular failings in the highest office. He was a little bully when he was a kid and a drunken blowmonkey as a young adult. Now, he parades around in cowboy boots and hat even though he is deathly afraid of horses -- there aren't any on his so-called "ranch." His supporters will see all this as "hate." I admit that I do not like George W. Bush. Why should I? But hate is too strong a word.

    Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 5:59pm

92. BB, now add to that foul litany starting a war just because he could, shredding the constitution, class warfare, that's what it is when you take the nation's money and give it to the rich and super rich, and then the word hate is not too strong

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 6:04pm

93. Frei, did I ccall you a foul name? sorry

    you've been singing the same sad song on this site for some time now,why keep coming back?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 6:05pm

94. "Hi TJ! haha, and "powerless little lefty trolls"

    Het Frei. Admitted. For now. BUT, I will relish in the ambience of the "Crack-up" as our esteemed poster Bushfrulz aka ? aka *Bushrulz*......claims so often. Where is the dufus anyway? Come Nov 06, I relish the thought of all that carnage. To see your boys and girls in the news doing the perp walk.

    Look at the news every day Frei. Reality is hitting you in the face. It is not going to get better for your tribe.

    I'm looking forward to next week when Abramoff starts to sqeal like a girl. He's gonna name a lot of people. people who have sold out for what...$2000....$3000....$5000. Does it matter? What matters is that they sold your country to the highest bidder du jour. All should go down..Rep and Dem alike.

    I know you will defend your people no matter what. You know what...I don't give a shit but I will sure be smiling a lot.

    Yes, I may be a powerlss litle lefty troll today. Not tomorrow or the day after. And you my friend will be defending what? Crime!

    Posted by doumer at 12/27/2005 @ 6:12pm

95. I believe politicians on both sides of the aisle exploit economic ignorance. Always will until that ignorance disappears - because they can.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 6:07pm

    But you guys are the party of principle.

    Until it's no longer convenient.

    or until you're in charge.

    or until what you what to do smacks head first into principle.

    or until you just don't feel like it anymore.

    Then the party line becomes "Policies for the moment"

    And all you fellas fall right into line.

    Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 6:16pm

96. I think this president MUST be impeached as soon as the opposition has the votes to do it. And to that end, we must work tirelessly to help them gain enough new seats in congress. If we do not achieve this goal, then I'm afraid the experiment in democracy, started near the end of the 18th century by a group of aristocratic, but disillusioned former British gentlemen, has run its course. In the guise of the United States of America, this once bright and shining upstart of a country brought a lot of good to the world. But even from the beginning, there was infighting, corruption, slavery and the practice of genocide wrought upon the First People's of this continent. But there was a spirit of goodness in the people, and Americans – separate from their government – were well liked in much of the world. The world followed the cultural experiments and outright audacity of the young nation. But eventually corporatism was allowed to advance in the name of industrial profits, and it overwhelmed the nation with a mighty form of friendly fascism, to borrow a book title.

    Now, all of the character seems to have disappeared, along with things like family farms, mom and pop enterprises, spunky style, and Hollywood hedonism. It is all looking like a great grey mass of militarism controlled by an extremely fallible leadership. I believe America is over, at least the America most of us over 40 grew up with. Maybe it was disco, I don't know. But there is a terrible wanting in this place, the population is warring with its better instincts so that traditional liberal values of family, charity, compassion and all the rest have been forced underground, surfacing only in times of most dire need, like tsunamis and hurricanes.

    There is hope that a significant percentage of Americans have now seen what evil rests behind the facade of so-called neo-conservatism. If the trend of awakening minds continues, there is hope that a kinder nation will re-emerge. But the neo-cons are not resting for a moment, they take no time to reflect upon their mistakes and misdeeds because they either do not recognize them as such, or they know exactly what they are doing and don't care. Either way, they could still engineer another national travesty that would jump start their base, and scare the rest into giving over any remaining rights they have in order to be "saved" from the "heathens" who they are convinced want to destroy "our way of life." If they can get everyone lined up in rows of fearful, terrorized citizens, then they will have the freedom to proceed with the clearly stated agenda of spreading democracy through force, and eventually becoming a true hegemonic dynasty on Earth.

    I believe all of this, but I also think there is hope for a much better future. However, that future will only happen if the people become so repulsed that they become unified for peace and justice. It might even result in civil war. I detest the thought and would never suggest such a resolution, but don't flinch! We have already had two major bloody conflicts here; a revolution and a civil war, plus several smaller actions like the war of 1812, and all of the "Indian Wars" of genocide. This land is no stranger to blood, and I pray that we never go down that path.

    But the rascals have to go without question, using the tools of law, not the rule of the mob. Congress must do its duty and start immediate hearings on the illegal wiretapping of American citizens, and on the illegal war in Iraq, and God only knows what other dirt lies hidden under the rug. We all must realize though, that no change is possible without we the people providing the catalyst in the form of our unified voices of dissent. If not, they will assume that only a small minority is paying attention to them. We all know that such is not the fact; a majority of Americans are at the very least, disillusioned. We have to voice our concerns in the strongest possible terms. Then the seismic political event will happen, and we will wake to a restored democracy, with liberty and justice for all. Let us not be strangers amongst ourselves; let's use this information highway to take back our rights as Americans and as human beings. America deserves another chance to shine! All we need is a true leader, and I think it should be an honest woman and a mother.

    Posted by randwolfe at 12/27/2005 @ 6:20pm

97. Conservatives want bigger government, Conservatives want government on their backs.

    Conservatives hate the law - the law is whatever the President feels like.

    Conservatives hate American values, and promote torture.

    They crack jokes in support of torture, they make excuses for torture, they hate the law - the law means nothing to them.

    Posted by reidsucks at 12/27/2005 @ 6:24pm

98. And all the salivating over impeachment is not serving the left very well.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 6:30pm

    another conservative that can see the future.

    But is there any other kind?

    Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 6:32pm

99. "I'm here to keep you losers from spending all of your time yes-manning each other."

    Yes Frei, you know how it goes. Slapping buttcheeks. Funny dude!

    Meanwhile on the home front: more of the same

    Glom

    Spin

    Turbo-fluff

    Ass sniffin and yelping

    And, soon enough....some semblance of truth.

    Where is your soul Frei? America first or never? Look around your community and tell me all is well.

    Posted by doumer at 12/27/2005 @ 6:33pm

100. Frei, maybe you learn something here, but what about us? all we seem to get from you is the same sob story, or S.O. B. story: why do they hate Bush so much, boo hoo, all this negativity, boo hoo hoo

     suck it up, it's not going to change, it will get worse for you, the sun doesn't shine up the same dog's ass every day

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 6:34pm

101. Rand, disco will save your soul

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 6:37pm

102. Frei, I have always qustioned your moral compass because you are insincere, a gadfly stinging here and there, and then: oh I don't like Bush either when he's bad. whattacrock

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 6:42pm

103. Stop and think.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 6:38pm

     We did. Your intercine warfare against president Clinton left you in control of the country.

     Prepare to be...

     wiped out

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 6:43pm

104. Frei, what makes you think our hatred of Bush doesn't serve us well? it serves us better than your servile fawning adoration serves you.

     you will need a lot of fortitude in that adoration, it's going to be a bumpy ride, Bush has snookered you pretty badly, that war thing, who's been paying the price for that?

     not you, but all those poor shlumps who have no where to go but the military and who have been voting for that piece of crap.

     they think they are dying for the defense of their country, ha, nothing could be further from the truth, they are dying for a lie, and for making the Shia in Iraq and their sponsors Iran more comfortable.

     do you think "our" Iraqis will ever fight? not as long as they have the american suckers do it for them. they could have been fighting Saddam for 30 years and rarely did so, the last time under the impression the US would help, haha suckers, Bush1 washed his hands of the whole affair.

     this is very much like Vietnam, where the ARVN did not fight, preferring to let the GIs do it for them, when the US left, they crumbled, and their corrupt regime with them

     you see Frei, this is what an impassioned argument looksd like

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 6:51pm

105. Frei, do not condescend to me, I will stack up my education and my intellect against yours any time, also my "status" in this community

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 6:53pm

106. bitter old fool? I'll take back my apology for bastard if you don't watch out

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 6:58pm

107. John Conyer's "The Constitution in Crisis" was issued last Friday and got zilch air time. It's a full indictment of Bush and Cheney and lays down the case for impeachment. That's one reason he is the 2005 Person of the Year at TvNewsLIES.org.

     Here's the article outlining Conyers'year of action:

     CLICK HERE [tvnewslies.org]

     Posted by Reg at 12/27/2005 @ 7:00pm

108. No. Clinton's behavior and lies left the Republicans in the majority as determined by the american electorate.

     Just as Bush's actions may someday swing the democrats back into power.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 6:53pm

     You know freiheit, you may not be a dumb as you post because that's what I was talking about. But you left out the part about the eight years conservatives spent running around with their hair on fire, screaming that the Clinton administration was the end of the world.

     The cries for impeachment aren't undoing the great liberal center of America. The evidence against Bush is mounting.

     I posit those cries aren't loud enough.

     Call it hate if you want and you will. It's all you lame asses have to fall back on.

     But, it's a winning strategy.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 7:05pm

109. You guys proved it

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 7:05pm

110. Frei, you see, you did not address any of my points in the above post. Chomskyesque is not a critique, you make no point. so tell me what you believe, that everything with Bush is great? I have never seen you attack torture and its apologists. I have not seen an intellectually argued position on the war, in Iraq and that against the poor. LBJ at least wanted a war ON poverty, with Bush we have a war on the poor.. take a stand, argue it with facts and citations, my respect will follow

     actually, I do respect you, enough to engage you, instead of ignoring you, I just expect more from you

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 7:10pm

111. I am a globalist, Johannesrolf, not a Republican.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 6:59pm

     It's nice to see you guys running away from the republican label.

     If only you had the balls to stop voting for it.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 7:15pm

112. JOHANNESROLF:

     I second that emotion.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 7:17pm

113. Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.

     Buddha Peace to All

     Posted by vano at 12/27/2005 @ 7:18pm

114. Freiheit: "I am a globalist..."

     Then I assume you support the UN and the World Court. I assume you support the concept of "international law." Because if you call yourself a "globalist" and don't support global order of law, you are simply a corporatist.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 7:19pm

115. As I recall it was the MSM who had their hair on fire over Clinton, Will.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 7:16pm

     and who populates the MSM. Conservative republican pundits.

     Frieheit are you so far above the fray, or for this analogy... the forrest, that you can't see the trees.

     if you climb down out of the nose bleed seats we will let you play

     I promise.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 7:20pm

116. FREIHEIT:

     In case you are unaware the mainstream media (or MSM) as you refer to it is wholly owned and operated by corporate America. Corporate America has proven its inimity to anything slightly resembling progressivism (i.e. populism, consumer protection, etc.)... so why is it so difficult to imagine them being so negative against Clinton? It is quite obvious that Bush has been the darling of the media, and has had a ridiculously long honeymoon, playing the MSM like a fiddle... but ONLY because the people who OWN the MSM are, in fact, heavily supportive financially of Republicans in general, and Bush in particular. Stop being intellectually lazy and dishonest. I expect better of you.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 7:21pm

117. The Paranoid Style In American Liberalism by William Kristol 01/02/2006

     No reasonable American, no decent human being, wants to send up a white flag in the war on terror. But leading spokesmen for American liberalism-hostile beyond reason to the Bush administration, and ready to believe the worst about American public servants-seem to have concluded that the terror threat is mostly imaginary. It is the threat to civil liberties from George W. Bush that is the real danger. These liberals recoil unthinkingly from the obvious fact that our national security requires policies that are a step (but only a careful step) removed from ACLU dogma.

     On Monday, December 19, General Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and now deputy director of national intelligence, briefed journalists. The back--and--forth included this exchange:

     Reporter: Have you identified armed enemy combatants, through this program, in the United States?

     Gen. Hayden: This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States.

     Reporter: General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful-can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court?

     Gen. Hayden: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available.

     Now, General Hayden is by all accounts a serious, experienced, nonpolitical military officer. You would think that a statement like this, by a man

     in his position, would at least slow down the glib assertions of politicians, op--ed writers, and journalists that there was no conceivable reason for President Bush to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. As Gary Schmitt and David Tell explain elsewhere in this issue, FISA was broken well before 9/11. Was the president to ignore the evident fact that FISA's procedures and strictures were simply incompatible with dealing with the al Qaeda threat in an expeditious manner? Was the president to ignore the obvious incapacity of any court, operating under any intelligible legal standard, to judge surveillance decisions involving the sweeping of massive numbers of cell phones and emails by high--speed computers in order even to know where to focus resources? Was the president, in the wake of 9/11, and with the threat of imminent new attacks, really supposed to sit on his hands and gamble that Congress might figure out a way to fix FISA, if it could even be fixed? The questions answer themselves.

     But the spokesmen for contemporary liberalism didn't pause to even ask these questions. The day after Gen. Hayden's press briefing, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee blathered on about "the Constitution in crisis" and "impeachable conduct." Barbara Boxer, a Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asserted there was "no excuse" for the president's actions. The ranking Democrat on that committee, Joseph Biden, confidently stated that the president's claims were "bizarre" and that "aggrandizement of power" was probably the primary reason for the president's actions, since "there was no need to do any of this."

     So we are really to believe that President Bush just sat around after 9/11 thinking, "How can I aggrandize my powers?" Or that Gen. Hayden-and his hundreds of nonpolitical subordinates-cheerfully agreed to an obviously crazy, bizarre, and unnecessary project of "domestic spying"?

     This is the fever swamp into which American liberalism is on the verge of descending.

     Some have already descended. Consider Arlene Getz, senior editorial manager at Newsweek.com. She posted an article Wednesday-also after Gen. Hayden's press briefing-on Newsweek's website ruminating on "the parallels" between Bush's defense of his "spying program" and, yes, "South Africa's apartheid regime."

     Back in the 1980s, when I was living in Johannesburg and reporting on apartheid South Africa, a white neighbor proffered a tasteless confession. She was "quite relieved," she told me, that new media restrictions prohibited our reporting on government repression. No matter that Pretoria was detaining tens of thousands of people without real evidence of wrongdoing. No matter that many of them, including children, were being tortured-sometimes to death. No matter that government hit squads were killing political opponents. No matter that police were shooting into crowds of black civilians protesting against their disenfranchisement. "It's so nice," confided my neighbor, "not to open the papers and read all that bad news."

     I thought about that neighbor this week, as reports dribbled out about President George W. Bush's sanctioning of warrantless eavesdropping on American conversations. . . . I'm sure there are many well--meaning Americans who agree with their president's explanation that it's all a necessary evil (and that

     patriotic citizens will not be spied on unless they dial up Osama bin Laden). But the nasty echoes of apartheid South Africa should at least give them pause.

     Yup. First the Bush administration will listen in to international communications of a few hundred people in America who seem to have been in touch with terrorists abroad . . . and next thing you know, government hit squads will be killing George W. Bush's political opponents.

     What is one to say about these media--Democratic spokesmen for contemporary American liberalism? That they have embarrassed and discredited themselves. That they cannot be taken seriously as critics. It would be good to have a responsible opposition party in the United States today. It would be good to have a serious mainstream media. Too bad we have neither

     Posted by stupidlibs at 12/27/2005 @ 7:23pm

118. Criticism is a foundation of freedom, of a democracy.

     Yet to keep the accused from classifying this "debate" as a bipartisan attack, the Democratic opposition should start calling a lie a lie - and a liar a LIAR! If they are not then they are remiss in their quest for truth. The truth requires follow-up questions that demand disclosure.

     And yes, the administration should be held accountable, for what some may consider "... crimes against its citizens." If the Republicans can try to impeach Clinton for his "personal" lie, then certainly for Bush's "capital" lie, and lost lives.

     In the end I hope that the public will see the truth as it is and not as the Republican spin masters will project it through lies and distortions; and instead support a more friendly approach to what our government's true role should be. --- An understanding of itself and its role to serve and protect all of its citizens, especially the poor and disadvantaged.

     Democrats can begin this by having the Democratic Party flood the airways with plans to initiate a series of bills whereby spending and tax cuts are dealt with in a most logical and practical way. The Republicans always attacked something, constantly repeating, until the public believed them. Right or wrong the public bought their brand of justice. Time for the Democrats to do the same, except with a caring for all of its citizens, not just the wealthy.

     Tax cuts - repeal them. Structural and social spending - do whatever it takes to mend this once great country. Help the hungry and poor not the wealthy few. And then dare the Republican obstructionists to explain to the citizens why these programs will be denied to them.

     And let us not forget the first responses of the President, in the classroom, without the scripted cheerleading bravados that came later. Has anything truly changed? Perhaps the truth has.

     Strength, Courage, and above all Wisdom --- when was the last time all three, together, were the heart of our soul.

     Thank you,.......................bohdan yuri

     Posted by bohda yuri at 12/27/2005 @ 7:24pm

119. Freiheit: "As I recall it was the MSM who had their hair on fire over Clinton, Will. They could repeat the words penis and oral sex at every breakfast table in america with a tv, radio or newspaper. That's a good thing to the MSM."

     I see, the MSM is only interested in sex stories. OK. If you really believe that, please consider the Gannon/Guckert story. According to Secret Service and FBI records, a gay male whore visited the Whitehouse under an assumed name with no apparent background check. Records show he visited the Whitehouse at night on over 15 occasions without checking out. He visited the Whitehouse over 200 times while maintaining his male escort web page which featured nude pictures of him.

     Please explain why our media was so uninterested in this story.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 7:24pm

120. FREIHEIT:

     Thomas Friedman is a hack, and has no clue when it comes to economics. The rag "The World is Flat" seeks to lyonize this race to the bottom for worldwide labor, setting the lowest possible standards for safety, compensation, and labor rights, and is the most blatant attempt at apology for the gilded class taking advantage of everyone else.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 7:26pm

121. Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 7:16pm

     Now, Will, what you were talking about is obvious, even to a dummy like me who is nowhere near the pillar of intelligence Johannesrolf is.

     Finally a moment of truth.

     My point all along is that the left is losing influence by focusing negatively on every breath Bush takes. That's all.

     Yes I hear you say it, what I don't see is any mechanism or how what you say influences the electorate. We really don't expect you wingnuts to get a big warm fuzzy over what we are doing. But the electorate isn't real happy with the antics of this administration. And it's only going to get worse.

     Typical of the contempt the left has for the intelligence of Americans who actually vote, IMO the more important message from the left should be here's what we want to do. Not here's what's being done wrong. But reading the posts on the Nation make it clear Bush-bashing is a fine art in the feel-good school...

     More wingnut Bullshit. One of those lies hammered on by conservative pundits for what... 13 years now. We have a message and will continue to have a message. We just don't rate the airtime. We ain't cool like you. But if the sleaze media wants dirt, we'll give them dirt. And when the cameras are on us the country will here what we will do.

     It's just that simple

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 7:30pm

122. Freiheit: "Haha, Will, sorry, I thought you were on earth. What planet are you on to say that the MSM is populated by conservative republican pundits?! Please, the NYTimes? ABCCBSNBCCNN conservative?! Yes, the love for Bush just emits from those outlets..."

     People like Freiheit can ridicule this line of thinking all they want, but we have recent history has our guide. Our media spent 8 years in the 90's attacking Clinton. Few conservative hoaxes were ridiculous enough to escape media saturation. Filegate, Travelgate, Buddhist Temples, BJ's, 20-year old land deals, bimbo eruptions, etc. etc. The editor of the NYT, Howell Raines, openly discussed his hatred for Clinton. The NYT pushed the Whitewater story long after the RTC found the Clintons innocent of any illegal activity in Whitewater. CNN and MSNBC pounded Clinton repeatedly. I can't believe you don't remember any of this Freiheit. Maybe it's you who was on another planet.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 7:34pm

123. BBATTEN:

     It's called selective memory... forgetting those unseemly details that strike to the core, exposing his hypocrisy. Seems very similar to Reagan's claims of not knowing about the Iran Contra situation.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 7:36pm

124. What I think is that the corporations which control our media have had pending legislation in front of the republicans who control congress for the last 12 years or so and this legislation has led to increased profits for them. Republican deregulation has been very profitable to them so they like republicans. I also think that the Bush administration, more than any other, has used careerism to impose a kind of self-censorship on the media. If people report things critical of the Bush administration, they lose access or even their jobs. Furthermore, television news personalities are almost all economic conservatives as people with huge incomes and giant 401K's tend to be.

     When "democrat" Chris Matthews calls those who don't like Bush "left wing wackos," is that your idea of a liberal media. After all, Matthews is a democrat, right.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 7:39pm

125. FREIHEIT:

     My sister just spent 3 years in China. I have myself travelled all over the world.

     And while I do like much of Krugman's work (not all, mind you, but a great deal), the bottom line is, you still didn't address my points. YTour comment was an attempt to say that since I haven't been to China in the past month, then I obviously don't know what the hell I am talking about... which is false. Go ahead and continue with the oblique personal attacks. It seems you are short on facts and reason, long on ad hominem invective.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 7:39pm

126. LIVE AND LET SPY December 21, 2005

     Apart from the day The New York Times goes out of business -- and the stellar work Paul Krugman's column does twice a week helping people house-train their puppies -- the newspaper has done the greatest thing it will ever do in its entire existence. (Calm down: No, the Times didn't hold an intervention for Frank Rich.)

     Monday's Times carried a major expose on child molesters who use the Internet to lure their adolescent prey into performing sex acts for Webcams. In the course of investigating the story, reporter Kurt Eichenwald broke open a massive network of pedophiles, rescued a young man who had been abused for years, and led the Department of Justice to hundreds of child molesters.

     I kept waiting for the catch, but apparently the Times does not yet believe pedophilia is covered by the "privacy right." They should stop covering politics and start covering more stories like this.

     In order to report the story, the Times said it obtained:

     -- copies of online conversations and e-mail messages between minors and the creepy adults;

     -- records of payments to the minors;

     -- membership lists for Webcam sites;

     -- defunct sites stored in online archives;

     -- files retained on a victim's computer over several years;

     -- financial records, credit card processing data and other information;

     -- The Neverland Ranch's mailing list. (OK, I made that last one up.)

     Would that the Times allowed the Bush administration similar investigative powers for Islamofacists in America!

     Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans." I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

     But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures: After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief.

     With a huge gaping hole in lower Manhattan, I'm not sure why we have to keep reminding people, but we are at war. (Perhaps it's because of the media blackout on images of the 9/11 attack. We're not allowed to see those because seeing planes plowing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon might make us feel angry and jingoistic.)

     Among the things that war entails are: killing people (sometimes innocent), destroying buildings (sometimes innocent) and spying on people (sometimes innocent).

     That is why war is a bad thing. But once a war starts, it is going to be finished one way or another, and I have a preference for it coming out one way rather than the other.

     In previous wars, the country has done far worse than monitor telephone calls placed to jihad headquarters. FDR rounded up Japanese -- many of them loyal American citizens -- and threw them in internment camps. Most appallingly, at the same time, he let New York Times editors wander free.

     Note the following about the Japanese internment:

     1) The Supreme Court upheld the president's authority to intern the Japanese during wartime;

     2) That case, Korematsu v. United States, is still good law;

     3) There are no Japanese internment camps today. (Although the no-limit blackjack section at Caesar's Palace on a Saturday night comes pretty close.)

     It's one or the other: Either we take the politically correct, scattershot approach and violate everyone's civil liberties, or we focus on the group threatening us and -- in the worst-case scenario -- run the risk of briefly violating the civil liberties of 1,000 people in a country of 300 million.

     Of course, this is assuming I'm talking to people from the world of the normal. In the Democrats' world, there are two more options. Violate no one's civil liberties and get used to a lot more 9/11s, or the modified third option, preferred by Sen. John D. Rockefeller: Let the president do all the work and take all the heat for preventing another terrorist attack while you place a letter expressing your objections in a file cabinet as a small parchment tribute to your exquisite conscience.

     COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

     Posted by stupidlibs at 12/27/2005 @ 7:39pm

127. FREIHEIT:

     My sister just spent 3 years in China. I have myself travelled all over the world.

     And while I do like much of Krugman's work (not all, mind you, but a great deal), the bottom line is, you still didn't address my points. YTour comment was an attempt to say that since I haven't been to China in the past month, then I obviously don't know what the hell I am talking about... which is false. Go ahead and continue with the oblique personal attacks. It seems you are short on facts and reason, long on ad hominem invective.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 7:39pm

128. Sorry for the double post, folks... dodgy internet connection.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 7:40pm

129. STUPIDLIBS:

     Dude, if you are gonna make asinine points, try to put them in your own words, instead of the words of that hackneyed gorgon, Anne Coulter. Grow a frontal lobe.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 7:41pm

130. Stupidlibs, I take it by your long-winded post that you believe the President to be above the law.

     Posted by BBatten at 12/27/2005 @ 7:42pm

131. Haha, Will, sorry, I thought you were on earth. What planet are you on to say that the MSM is populated by conservative republican pundits?! Please, the NYTimes? ABCCBSNBCCNN conservative?! Yes, the love for Bush just emits from those outlets...

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 7:25pm

     Yes the old are you from earth argument. And then you what? You brought up the New York Times, three network news programs and CNN. And of course left out every other cable news station , financial channel, right wing radio station and newspaper nation wide.

     How convent for you to only include the four TV outlets and one newspaper that support your bullshit.

     But if you want to talk about the additional ones I mentioned, what are they? Yup, full of right wing pundits. And what have those pundits been doing for the last thirteen years?

     That's Correct, running around with their hair on fire screaming that the Clinton administration, democrats and liberals are the end of the world.

     Nice try stumpy

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 7:42pm

132. FREIHEIT:

     The MSM is conservative not because of how they treated Clinton, but because of who OWNS them. Duh...

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 7:44pm

133. FREIHEIT:

     I don't know where you were visiting in China or India, but it seems you were waling through some sort of economic Potemkin villages. Let me ask you this. When is the last time you crossed the border to Mexico? Well, I cross the border at least once a year, considering my family lives in Texas. What I see is a wasteland of corporate irresponsibility, obvious and flagrant excesses of pollution, labor treatment malfeasance, etc etc. I saw the same thing in China (haven't been to India yet, although numerous friends of mine have been, and they have mentioned the same set of phenomena). My best friend, who just returned from living in Africa for the past 6 months, again, the same thing. I don't know how much time you spent in those respective places, but I challenge you to get away from the beaten path, and see how the real populations live and cope with the realities of modern lassez-faire capitalism. Then, perhaps, you would have an accurate depiction of the true realities of the world... and not the staged image you are expected to believe.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 8:05pm

134. FREIHEIT:

     Again... the MSM is not specifically "conservative" any more than it is "liberal". However, it is quite unabashedly pro-corporate America. It just so happens that since corporate America and the "conservative" movement currently coincide, the views of the "conservative" movement get more airtime and considerably better presentation.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 8:08pm

135. Will C, you are the only person I've come across to claim that the MSM is conservative. Well done. A public who can buy that would certaily believe Bush could be impeached.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 7:59pm

     Dude there's a half a dozen other posts that aren't mine that say the same thing.

     Are you stupid?

     I don't read the new york times and I watch cable news. Your argument can only be made if you cherrypick what's in the MSM and what isn't

     And that's not honest.

     but you're conservative

     we expect lies

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 8:09pm

136. Will C, you are the only person I've come across to CREDIBLY claim that the MSM is conservative. Well done. A public who can buy that would certaily believe Bush could be impeached.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 8:15pm |

     repeat yourself, add a word here or there. You're still cherry picking.

     Though you do say it with conviction.

     And, that did work

     for a while.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 8:18pm

137. FREIHEIT:

     Um, wrong, and wrong. These cesspits throughout the world are a result of colonial powers (the good ole' US of A included) invading, assassinating, overthrowing regimes, etc. etc. in largely successful attempts to co-opt or outright steal mineral, labor, and financial wealth from these places. On many occasions, certainly not all, that included overthrowing democratically elected regimes for the benefit of corporate shareholders whose money paved the way straight to the upper echelons of power of whatever colonial/imperial power you choose.

     You're right about corrupt and dictatorial regimes... but not socialist... you're conflating Stalinism or National Socialism with actual socialism. The difference is, both Stalinism and Nazi-ism were based on totalitarian regimes. With Stalin, it was a top-down, corporate structure, in which "structural adjustments" in the form of purges and pogroms were a constant occurance. In the case of Nazi-ism, it was true fascism... or, in less politically charged language, it was large corporate concerns teaming up with an autocratic leadership to quell any and all progressive tendencies on the part of the population.

     Apparently, your understanding of the economic history of the world is wanting. I recommend "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by Perkins as a primer for what lassez-faire capitalism's realities truly are.

     And also, apparently you have not read many of my posts... I make no secret of my economic views. I am a Christian communitarian. But from a secular standpoint, you could easily label me as some strain of socialist. Forgive me for thinking I should get some benefit from paying taxes... and that benefit does not include massive giveaways to corporate America, or the creation of a massive welfare state in the form of the military-industrial complex.

     The US spends more on its military than the next 14-15 countries combined, depending on the statistical year you use. When you include the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, we spend more than all countries on the planet... COMBINED. The point to this is simple. Empires spend willy-nilly on their militaries... not democracies.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 8:26pm

138. Posted by RICHARD38 12/27/2005 @ 1:29pm | ignore this person

     Richard,

     Well put!

     Posted by seattlescribe at 12/27/2005 @ 8:32pm

139. Here's tons of examples to support my contradicting you: http://www.mrc.org

     But I enjoy having the chance to play.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 7:25pm

     The Media Research Center!

     You gotta be kidding me. Damn son you're a whack job. Hell, you should have just posted this first then we could have spent the rest of the afternoon laughing at your pseudo intellectualism.

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     oh man, that's a good one.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 8:47pm

140. If it has "Research" in the title

     it's wingnut

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 8:48pm

141. LOVE LIBERTY:

     "Perhaps you can enlighten we ignorant evangelicals about how liberalism only denigrates the beliefs of Christians who believe that their Bible is the word of God? I don't recall you and your 'progressive' compatriots here having equally negative attitudes to those who may be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or another faith?

     No you 'enlightened progressives' only find Evangelical Christians those who must be singled out, ridiculed, and scorned for our faith. Educate me please on how your progressive beliefs lead you to that kind of discrimination?"

     I think you mean "us ignorant evangelicals" (direct object).

     But as to the subject of literalism, I'd like to offer a few thoughts.

     The gospels are replete with examples of vignettes built around the form of some outsider, or even his own disciples, coming to Jesus with a comically literal understanding of one of his sayings, and then the Lord using that malaprop as an object lesson.

     Let me say up front, the core of these teachings is the contrast between the carnal mind and the spiritual mind. In short, literalism is carnal thinking.

     A few examples:

     Mark 4:33-34:

     [33] And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.

     [34] But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

     The multitude were not able to understand the things of the Spirit directly, so the seed was planted in them indirectly.

     The density of the common brain is well understood, by the good and by the evil, as said Machiavelli:

     e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare.

     (and they are so simple, the people, and so obedient to the present necessity, that whosoever wishes to deceive always finds him who is willing to be deceived)

     This is a close parallel to the Hermann Göring quote that MHENRIDAY included in his post: "Man braucht nichts zu tun, als dem Volk zu sagen, es würde angegriffen" — "One need do nothing more than tell the people they are under attack".

     But consider some more of Jesus' benign obscurity:

     I'll bet you know John 3:16. But have you considered carefully the preceding verses?

     John 3:

     [1]There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

     [2] The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

     [3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

     [4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

     [5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

     [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

     [7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

     [8] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

     [9] Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

     [10] Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

     [11] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

     [12] If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

     Do you see the almost slapstick portrayal of the old man? It's sort of Commedia dell'arte, or Punch and Judy — standardized, formalized clownish characterizations. But then the lofty miraculous language of Jesus in speaking of the life in the Spirit.

     Another from John, chapter 4, vv. 31-34:

     [31] In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.

     [32] But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

     [33] Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?

     [34] Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

     Again, here is Jesus speaking Spiritual things, and the disciples hearing in his words literal things: [Mt. 16:6-8]

     [6] Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

     [7] And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.

     [8] Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

     His point was, (Luke 12:1) "Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."

     The writer to the Hebrews, in the fifth chapter of his epistle, the 11th – 14th verses, says:

     (Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec)

     [11] Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

     [12] For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

     [13] For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

     [14] But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

     The miracles, the magic, the religion about Jesus, that's the milk, for babes.

     The strong meat, requiring strong teeth and guts, is the teaching of Jesus. [Mt. 5:3-12]

     [3] Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

     [4] Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

     [5] Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

     [6] Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

     [7] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

     [8] Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

     [9] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

     [10] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

     [11] Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

     [12] Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

     And verses 38 and 39:

     [38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

     [39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

     Have you yet come to grips with Matthew ch. 23?

     [31] When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

     [32] And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

     [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

     [34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

     [35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

     [36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

     [37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

     [38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

     [39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

     [40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

     [41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

     [42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

     [43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

     [44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

     [45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

     [46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

     I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you, friend, but you are less a Christian than a Pharisee.

     And Jesus was a socialist revolutionary who spoke truth to power. His friends were the lowly, and they all loved him. His enemies were the rich and powerful, and they killed him, and they'd kill him again if they got the chance.

     They are those that put on a grand show of religion, but have nothing of Jesus inside, who worship on Wall St.

     In the words of the old Labor song, "Which side are you on?"

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 8:49pm

142. PROUDPRIMATE:

     Masterfully written. My heartfelt respect to you.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 8:53pm

143. primate, that was a bit much for me so forgive my skipping.

     are you familiar with the film "the gospel acccording to st matthew" by Pasolini? very much your point of view. highly recommended as is ALL the work of this great filmmaker and poet

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 8:56pm

144. Posted by PROUDPRIMATE 12/27/2005 @ 8:49pm

     Liberty is talk the talk "Christian"

     as I feel are most evangelics

     the walk they walk betrays them.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 8:58pm

145. Oops -- I said Matthew 23, when I meant 25.

     I was going to recite the litany of curses against the hypocritical Pharisees in 23, but I decided I'd ranted long enough. So I skipped to 25, but missed the change of digits.

     Read it for yourselves, though: it's withering!

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 8:59pm

146. Frei,"setting the lowest possible standards for safety, compensation, and labor rights," this is happening in our very own country, but you couldn't possibly see that, can you?

     I do recall your taking a stand against torture, my mistake

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 9:00pm

147. I think Friedman is a schmuck, Krugman is the one and only

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 9:04pm

148. I think Friedman is a schmuck, Krugman is the one and only

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/27/2005 @ 9:04pm

     I think Friedman was shooting for Judy Millers insider status at the white house. But Gee Dubya didn't need two mindless tools at the NYT on the payroll.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 9:08pm

149. To ALL:

     It seems to me that there is a profound misunderstanding between both nominal sides of these debates. On the one hand, we have the Republicans/"conservatives". From my experience reading and participating in these debates, they believe everything boils down to politics. The ends justify the means. Hence, they cannot understand someone standing up for a principle, a standard up for which someone would stand.

     On the other hand, the "liberals" or progressives stand for principles which are unimpeachable, and more importantly, universal. Those include equality of treatment under the law (regardless of country or nationality, sexuality or religion), absolute conceptions of right and wrong, etc. It is precisely this gulf, this difference between both sides which dooms these debates to devolve into little more than screaming at one another while holding our respective hands over our ears.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 9:09pm

150. Regarding Krugman, let us not forget that he accurately predicted the magnitude and time frame of the 2000 crash... and he did it almost a year early.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 9:10pm

151. Jorcheim -- Many thanks. I'm just now reading America, Fascism, and God by UU minister from Austin TX, Davidson Loehr. He makes this point a thousand times better than I, quoting abundantly from Origen, Augustine, and others who might be called the "grandfathers of Protestantism".

     JR -- sorry if that's not your cup of tea. I'd love to see the Pasolini film. BTW, the Western Tradition is the nicest Xmas gift I could have hoped for! Viel dank! And come to find out, there's plenty more -- I'm watching electron distribution clouds, learning about Pasteur and the origin of the word "racemic acid" -- it's related to the word "raisin", eh?

     But I think even secular you must admit, the Jesus of the gospels is a far cry from that stuffed dead thing carried thru the streets by the far right.

     Hezekiah destroyed Moses' brazen serpent, as the people had come to worship it. He cursed it, calling it "Nehushtan" (brass).

     "He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan." [IIKings 18:4]

     The object itself, once valid [Num. 21:8], had become a dead work.

     The short answer is, literalism is idolatry.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:16pm

152. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/27/2005 @ 9:09pm

     You can't debate with someone that has an ever sliding standard of acceptability, that will lie to you, that will lie about you.

     it isn't possible.

     to beat these guys, we are going to have to climb into the sewers and drag them back out into the light.

     and that means no more mister nice guy from our side.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 9:17pm

153. PROUDPRIMATE:

     One of my best friends is a biblical scholar/pastor/college professor. He turned me on to a movement in the church called distributivism. It is a rather complicated concept, but it is boiled down to essentially a Christian economic much akin to socialism. Very interesting... so much so that I intend to do my doctorate on it. Check it out... you can probably find some resources on the web.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 9:21pm

154. WILL C.:

     I have been advocating that course of action for quite a while now. I'm glad someone agrees with me.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 9:22pm

155. Jorchy --

     "It is precisely this gulf"

     I like to characterize it this way.

     There are two forms of authority.

     1. The former, older one is that of the Alpha male chimp. What matters vis-a-vis law is not what is said, but who says so. The rule by an individual. Being an insider is the whole show.

     2. The latter, ultimate one is the Rule of Law. It doesn't matter who says so: it only matters what is said. Euclid's Theorems are self-evident. Transparency and universality are the whole show.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:22pm

156. PROUDPRIMATE:

     Precisely... again, glad you and I are on the same page.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 9:28pm

157. "Christian economic"

     well, in a nutshell, Acts 2:44-45

     [44] And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

     [45] And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

     Acts 4:32 --

     "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."

     Pure communism! (of course, it was on a scale of face to face, which is where it can succeed)

     "Imagine no possessions

     I wonder if you can --"

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:29pm

158. "The I-Word is Gaining Ground"

     Mrs. Heuvel:

     Thanks for your beautifully crafted article "I-Word". You are making a great contribution. Consider me to be one of your soldiers.

     Jim F. Woodstock, GA

     Posted by ladjf at 12/27/2005 @ 9:30pm

159. I have been advocating that course of action for quite a while now. I'm glad someone agrees with me.

     Posted by JORCHEIM 12/27/2005 @ 9:22pm

     Most of the liberal guys who post here have an intellect greater than mine. But we can't win in the larger country with an intellectual argument. It will blow right over every ones heads.

     We must make the emotional argument, the impassioned argument. The conservatives have been doing it for decades and they use a lot of lies and distortions to do it. We have the truth on our side.

     But they still have the killer instinct

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 9:31pm

160. PROUDPRIMATE:

     I wouldn't quite go as far as to call it communism... but they are definitely close cousins. Communism is a state-based economic, whereas distributivism/Christian economic is a communitarian approach.

     On a lighter note, I designed a t-shirt that encapsulates my ideas and makes a lot of people mad. Think Jesus on the front...

     The words "Jesus was a commie..." on the back. I would be more than happy to sell you one if you like. I started my own t-shit/hat company.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 9:32pm

161. Will C:

     "no more mister nice guy from our side."

     "Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zu sehen daß er nicht zum Ungeheuer wird.

     Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:33pm

162. distributivism

     OIC

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:33pm

163. WILL C.:

     Exactly... it will take getting back in the streets... it will take massive demonstrations... it will take someone with massive charisma... and most of all, it will take someone who can dodge a bullet.

     It's been tried in the past. Our leaders were murdered by the state.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 9:34pm

164. Posted by PROUDPRIMATE 12/27/2005 @ 9:33pm

     Sorry, I don't speak German

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 9:34pm

165. primate, no apology necessary, I agree with you. that Annenberg site also has a nice series on film noir among other things. I'm thrilled to have made another convert to "The Western Tradition", which by the way is available for purchase on DVD, alas costly, but teachers pounce.

     I'm not as secular as it sometimes appears, I was educated by jesuits, am a huge fan of baroque church music, have read the bible through a few times, it never pales as a work of literature, and while I no longer attend church, four times a week as a youngster, I like the idea of god, in ALL manifestations, and the idea of Jesus too. what I hate is Christoids, the pope, all of them except John 22nd, and I hate being moralized to, though I don't mind doing so myself .

     I find the Enlightenment and humanism as my lodestar. Professor Weber explained to me that the men of the enlightenment were "swimming in a sea of religion"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 9:37pm

166. PROUDPRIMATE:

     Du kannst sehr gutes Deutsch. Ausgezeichnet!

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 9:38pm

167. Exactly... it will take getting back in the streets... it will take massive demonstrations... it will take someone with massive charisma..

     Posted by JORCHEIM 12/27/2005 @ 9:34pm

     Death ain't shit. Learn how to move the emotion with sound bites. Learn how to attack with a smile and a laugh.

     then you won't need crowd

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 9:38pm

168. WILL C.:

     Until we have a voice via the media, that will be nigh impossible. THe consolidation of the air waves into the hands of the plutocrats for all intents and purposes ended populist media movements.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 9:40pm

169. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/27/2005 @ 9:40pm

     Then each second we do get better count for something.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 9:42pm

170. WILL C.:

     Agreed. I personally think our time is better spent canvassing, and talking to people one on one. It's precisely that personal connection that makes all the difference.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 9:43pm

171. Will, don't be so modest.

     for them that's not habla the tscherman:

     he who fights monsters must take care not to turn into a monster himself

     if you look into the abyss for long, the abyss will look also into you

     the first is a bit more obvious. that Nietzsche fellow had it going on

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 9:43pm

172. Will --

     That's Niezsche, from "Beyond Good & Evil":

     "He that doth battle with monsters, let him take care lest thereby he doth a monster become.

     And when thou long into the Abyss do gaze, gazes the Abyss also deep into thee."

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:46pm

173. oops -- I crossed my i's and dotted my t

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:47pm

174. Jorchy, I bet your T shirt store is on Cafepress, right? I have one too.

     I can probably imagine no possessions better than Lennon did, what with his apartments in the Dakota

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 9:48pm

175. Posted by JORCHEIM 12/27/2005 @ 9:43pm

     Here Here!

     When I was a kid people used to actually knocked on my parents door to talk about the issues and their candidate.

     That's only happened to me once since then and it was on the day before the last election. I don't even remember what the guy was running for, something small and local.

     But I voted for him just because he knocked on my door and asked for my vote

     What a concept.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 9:48pm

176. Primate and JR

     but to fight the monster you must become the monster.

     and when the monster is dead you must become you again.

     and you will

     because you is what you are

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 9:51pm

177. Will --

     You're right about the shoe leather. It's the death of community that we have to undo

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:51pm

178. and if we could take the house OR senate, then we'd have a platform and subpoena.

     With neither, we're toast, and so is western civ, I fear

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:52pm

179. I'm a member of DFA (the Dean people) here in Maine, and we work on local issues, and try to protect our good Dem legislature & gov.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:54pm

180. Dear Rio Bravo.

     It is quite obvious that you have not taken your head out of the sand in quite some time.

     Posted by devdev at 12/27/2005 @ 9:57pm

181. "Our leaders were murdered by the state."

     that sounds like Stevie Wonder's song, "Your Name Is Big Brother":

     "You've killed all our leaders

     I don't even have to do nothin to you

     You'll cause your own country to fall."

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:57pm

182. But if America falls, where do the refugees run to?

     China?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 9:58pm

183. But there's also the Kennedys and possibly Paul Wellstone.

     Whom did you have in mind, specifically, Will?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 10:00pm

184. primate, Maine? know of any great summer places up there to visit?

     off topic? you bet, sue me

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 10:06pm

185. RANDWOLFE --

     just now got to your long piece on p.3.

     you've said a lot of the things I've been thinking.

     y'know, the trouble is the deceivableness of the American people.

     I think television has crippled the minds of humanity.

     America has had it so good for so long -- the depression smartened up my parents generation, but those since have "settled on their lees".

     My opinion is, if a large majority of America could become familiar with the peer-review paper by Prof. Steven Jones of BYU, "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions" [physics.byu.edu], it would be more than sufficient to shake them to the core.

     They have been had in spades, and if they ever realize that, they will make some changes.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 10:20pm

186. JR -- there is so much forest primeval up north of here, you'd be astonished at it. Much of it is nearly roadless, I guess (haven't seen that much, but a little)

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 10:22pm

187. I always seem to be the last one on these threads [sigh!]

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 10:37pm

188. I know how you feel, having been last often.

     that WTC stuff is fascinating, but infuriating. Is everything we've been told lies? the 19 highjackers, Bin Laden, everything? I can't imagine it, I have no way to compute this. how about you? are you convinced?

     I have a few conspiracy theories myself, believing for instance that Kennedy, John, was killed by Castro, after attempts on his life were made and foiled, and that this is the reason there will never be a detente with Cuba while Fidel is alive. one of Oswald's few statements were: I am a patsy. and of course seing him killed on live television did nothing to still that supicion.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 10:51pm

189. I am a globalist, Johannesrolf, not a Republican.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/27/2005 @ 6:59pm

     Aren't Republicans, allegedly, the party of less govt.? (never been bigger or more powerful.)...The traditionalist...the constitutionalists? ..uh...well....then bush is no Republican. He is a corporatist...and it sounds like you are too.

     -----------------------------------------------------------

     'So we are really to believe that President Bush just sat around after 9/11 thinking, "How can I aggrandize my powers?"'

     Yes.

     ---------------------------------------------

     OK, now, I'm starting to think maybe I am the stupid one who doesn't get it...help me out here...

     Given: There is a political right and left. The left doesn't like the rights ideas and the right doesn't like the lefts ideas.

     So we have left wing Americans and Right wing Americans. Both thinking they know the best way to protect/preserve, what we agree was the best country in the world.

     What happened to the American part.... when did the Constitution become moot, if your party hates it? When did elections become unimportant, as long as your guy gets to take office?

     If you are a conservative, then, to you, I am wrong-headed...ok...fair enough... But is not the Constitution and the rule of law, personal privacy, accountable govt., fair uncontested election etc., there for us all....regardless of what policies you think are best?

     So, you hate liberals (especially, you RB), is this not your country too...do you not want to preserve its foundations?

     What if the bush admin. succeeds in getting the power it wants, and then a progressive president gets all those powers, (ignoring, for the moment, that a truly progressive prisident would put everything back the way it was)...that'd be fine by you?

     When did we become "my party, right or wrong."

     What am I missing?

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 12/27/2005 @ 10:52pm

190. Whom did you have in mind, specifically, Will?

     Posted by PROUDPRIMATE 12/27/2005 @ 10:00pm

     I try to stay away from the great man theory. From my experience all people can rise to the occasion when the time and the situation demand it.

     our leaders will come from the places we are not looking

     My only concern is that we've been listening to the other sides bullshit for so long, I think we just forgot to believe in ourselves.

     I believe

     That's where it starts

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 10:54pm

191. So much interesting writing since I took my dinner and cleaning break. Wow!

     Going back to Proudprimate's original response to LL's brittleness, conjoined with Freiheit's visions of sad liberals, so much of the problem is that Conservatives are just scared. They're scared of losing theirs, scared of the unknown, scared of the known but unfamiliar, scared of the familiar but different. And the fear that insulates them is the fear that blinds them. Marriage can be threatened by gays. Our children can be endangered by television (my favorite thing is to wonder how the same conservative parents who "struggled" with telling little Bobby and Suzie about the bawdy adventures of Clinton's presidential pecker are now dealing with our country attacking and occupying a country that has never threatened them).

     I think it is fine to fight in the trenches, but these people need help as much as they might need a slap in the face. When it gets too personal, they disconnect. So while assholes like Hastert and Frist need to be treated like the grownup pieces of nerdshit that they are, those who find value in these guys need a more gentle approach. If you like, I can play the good cop and you guys can be the bad cops.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 10:55pm

192. ah! more company!

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 10:59pm

193. grownup pieces of nerdshit

     Posted by TJBEHRENS112/27/2005 @ 10:55pm

     and a classic is born

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 11:08pm

194. TJ

     to help them we have to get a jacket on them

     they will resist

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 11:09pm

195. Eric, :"When did we become "my party, right or wrong."

     probably shortly after the ink on the constitution was dry.

     at the risk of sounding like a broken record, try explaining that to a CD listening youngster, I point you to "the age of Jackson" by Schlesinger Jr, where he quite clearly shows a divided country around 1800, during and after Jefferson's presidency, the parties then being democrats and whigs, the latter the conservatives.

     the split is really already apparant during the writing of the constitution, where Hamilton favors rule by the rich, and an imperial presidency for life, and Jefferson a more democratic set up.

     Andrew Jackson, a beast where the indians are concerned, is nevertheless a democratic paragon of the time, as is Van Buren.

     because democracy needs this constant chafing of the two interests, that of the haves and that of the have nots, it is essential that freedom and openness be preserved, the secrecy that Bush has instituted all throughout government is the first step toward tyranny

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2005 @ 11:11pm

196. But who is the "them" you refer to? All Republican voters? All conservatives? Heck, I don't even like most of the moderate leaders in congress and I don't think you do either. Do we lasso 'em all, do a two-second hogtying on 'em, and then roast 'em for dinner?

     Moderates: it's what's for dinner.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 11:13pm

197. "that WTC stuff is fascinating, but infuriating. Is everything we've been told lies? the 19 highjackers, Bin Laden, everything? I can't imagine it, I have no way to compute this. how about you? are you convinced?"

     It's maddening to catch myself being deflated and feeling lost at the thought that "what if even Bin Ladin is merely play-acting?" What kind of question is that for an American to ask himself?

     I was content to believe that UBL was a madman, but an honest one, perhaps even with a legitimate gripe. I felt justified in trying to catch him, even kill him, but not to ignore the wrongs done to the world by us of which he seemed to be the avenger.

     Have you read John Perkins' book Confessions of An Economic Hit Man? If not, see him on Amy Goodman at

     http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? sid=04/11/09/1526251&mode=thread&tid=25 Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions

     Doggone this Nation blog engine. If you want to see that show, you'll have to remove the space I put in the URL right after the question mark.

     He tells his own story, about how the corporations subvert the gov'ts of resource-rich 3rd world countries, and if the Economic Hit Men can't corrupt the leaders, like Omar Torrijos of Panama or Jaime Roldos of Ecuador, then the "jackals" are sent in (Torrijos was handed a tape player as he got on in his helicopter. Boom -- no more hero. But Saddam was too smart, well guarded, and had too many doubles. So their only recourse was to send in the marines.

     I have a book called Killing Hope, that tells about the ~50 legit gov'ts the CIA has overthrown since its foundation in (48?).

     I'm afraid the truth is more than we could imagine.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 11:19pm

198. Will --

     "Whom did you have in mind, specifically, Will?"

     What i meant was, who was it that they killed, in particular, that you were thinking of. I mean, like, RFK, or Malcolm?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 11:21pm

199. "And the fear that insulates them is the fear that blinds them."

     There's a lot to what you say.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 11:22pm

200. To be liberal you must support the ieals laid out itn the US constitution.

     Form the more perfect union

     Establish justice

     Ensure domestic tranquility

     Provide for the common defense

     Promote the general welfare

     And secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity

     Then you have to support he main body of the constitution

     Then you have to support the amendments.

     Those who oppose these things are them

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 11:23pm

201. sorry... the ideals laid out in

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 11:24pm

202. "Andrew Jackson, a beast where the indians are concerned, is nevertheless a democratic paragon of the time, as is Van Buren."

     Jackson kind of like LBJ in that respect.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 11:24pm

203. Oh, that's right. From Schoolhouse Rock. Got it.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 11:26pm

204. What i meant was, who was it that they killed, in particular, that you were thinking of. I mean, like, RFK, or Malcolm?

     Posted by PROUDPRIMATE 12/27/2005 @ 11:21pm

     You lost me.

     I let the dead stay dead

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 11:26pm

205. JOHANNESROLF:

     It is a truism of 2 opposing parties only because of the way the rules in this country are written. When you have a winner-take-all system, you have two competing nodes of power. When there is a more representative form of government, e.g. parliamentary systems, instant run-off systems, there is a much greater contrast and variety of views, on every issue. Take, for example, Germany. Germany has 5 major parties, and a number of minor parties. Whoever "wins" an election must cobble together some form of coalition.

     I'm sure you know this, but I just wanted to point this niggling issue out to the less knowledgable about electoral rules and systems.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 11:27pm

206. A certain amount of ferocity on our part is in order, vis-a-vis the sanctity of the Constitution, Will, I must agree.

     Absolutely no slack on that matter. Our moderates are giving away the store by lack of firmness.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 11:27pm

207. Oh, that's right. From Schoolhouse Rock. Got it.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/27/2005 @ 11:26pm

     It's the liberal agenda

     it's to bad our kids learn the song but not the meaning

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 11:28pm

208. PROUDPRIMATE:

     Killing Hope was written by William Blum. Fantastic book. One of my favorites.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 11:28pm

209. "instant run-off systems"

     Absolutely!

     Another thing needed:

     Criminalize the vote of a member of congress who hasn't read the bill.

     Criminalize burying a piece of pork in a giant continuing resolution, in fact criminalize the giant continuing resolution.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 11:29pm

210. ‘Ohio Patriot Act' May Soon Become Law by Brendan Coyne (bio)

     Dec 23 - A contentious bill awaiting Ohio Governor Bob Taft's signature would give state law-enforcement officials sweeping powers to question, detain and arrest people. It would allow authorities to demand identification in a broad range of circumstances, and it asks local law enforcement agencies to begin enforcing federal immigration law. The bill also exempts businesses from telling the public about safety and security threats.

     Passed by both legislative bodies last week, the act is expected to be signed into law, though the Ohio arm of the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have been urging state residents to implore Taft not to sign the measure. In a letter sent to supporters last week, the ACLU said the bill "substantially infringes upon Ohioans' First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights." They added that it "enshrines discrimination against aliens and immigrants" as well as "chills free speech and dissent."

     The law, which opponents have dubbed the "Ohio Patriot Act," would task the state's Division of Homeland Security with coordinating information-sharing among government and private organizations. The bill also imposes greater penalties on money laundering and prohibits the use of biological weapons, laws which already exist at the federal level.

     The legislation has also come under fire for permitting operators of businesses such as chemical plants and other such facilities to keep safety vulnerabilities from the public they place at risk. The bill explicitly authorizes, but does not even require, the disclosure of hazard information to select government agencies while ensuring the revelations will not become public record.

     © 2005 The NewStandard.

     Posted by Munich at 12/27/2005 @ 11:31pm

211. "written by William Blum"

     That's the one

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 11:31pm

212. Night all. Again, wonderful discussion. Wish I had been a meaningful participant.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2005 @ 11:31pm

213. "sweeping powers to question, detain and arrest people"

     Anybody know where I can catch a ride to Denmark?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 11:31pm

214. PROUDPRIMATE:

     I highly recommend Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert. Scary because it's true.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 11:32pm

215. "Wish I had been a meaningful participant."

     I thought you were, if modest in quantity

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 11:32pm

216. Fuck Denmark. Sweden for me.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 11:32pm

217. see ya TJ

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 11:32pm

218. The women are hotter... :D

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 11:33pm

219. NIght TJ

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 11:33pm

220. amsterdam

     we could pool our money and set up a killer hash bar

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 11:33pm

221. Ok, someone just deleted two of my entries... strange.

     As I said, PROUDPRIMATE, I recommend Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert. It's scary as hell.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 11:34pm

222. Ok, someone just deleted two of my entries... strange.

     As I said, PROUDPRIMATE, I recommend Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert. It's scary as hell.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 11:35pm

223. "Crossing the Rubicon"

     I'll bump it up a notch on my reading list.

     I gotta hit the hay myself.

     But must say, this is a scholarly bunch here at The Nation.

     I blog at HuffPo and RawStory, both great news sites, and have committed bloggers with good ideas. But the level of scholarship and insight here is extraordinary.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/27/2005 @ 11:36pm

224. Nighty night all... The sheep are calling... gotta start counting.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/27/2005 @ 11:38pm

225. it's the march of the penguins then

     night all

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 11:40pm

226. RIO

     We all went away

     It's safe for you to come out now

     Posted by Will C. at 12/27/2005 @ 11:41pm

227. Posted by STUPIDLIBS 12/27/2005 @ 7:23pm | ignore this person

     Stupidlibs,

     You quote the arch neocon William Kristol. "No reasonable American, no decent human being, wants to send up a white flag in the war on terror." Kristol artfully equates the war on terror with Bush's military adventure in Iraq. You acquiesce to this non-distinction by cutting and pasting without comment.

     Many of the right wing bloggers here are called "neocons" by progressive responders to their postings. Often we use a broad brush where distinctions are necessary. It is true that a few of you are neocons; it is also true that most of you are just garden-variety partisan hacks and reactionaries with a sprinkling of libertarians.

     Although I'm not inclined to religious metaphors, the real neocons are truly Lucifer's agents. They are currently in power and rule by illusion and deceit; they seduce otherwise good people with their lies; they subvert our democracy, plunder our treasury, and spill the blood of our noble ones with equanimity. That they do so with a grand vision, a plan for a "Pax Americana" for the world, which they whole-heartedly subscribe to with keen intellects and which they zealously fight for makes them formidable.

     The true "noble cause" of this era is to fight these modern Beelzebubs whenever and wherever they appear. The objective is to terminate their fecund activities. Our tactics should be "Paine-like, i.e., common sense and reason applied in line with the principles of the Constitution. It is not an understatement that peace and prosperity for our people, as well as the rest of the world's people, depend upon our success.

     As for the hacks and reactionaries, like flies at a picnic, or the common cold, they will always be with us.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 12/28/2005 @ 03:15am

228. LEFTy and DAKONNA:

     Thanks to you both for your thoughtful and smart responses. A last, not unkind comment awaits in the former KVH thread, if you care to read it.

     My full respects -

     Blink

     Posted by Blinky at 12/28/2005 @ 03:23am

229. Zogby's poll results are interesting though the phrase "if it turns out he misled the American people" is so vague as to be almost meaningless.

     For the past wk. I've been writing in my blog to ask if Zogby or anyone else has polled with this specific scandal in mind. That's a better test of current impeachment sentiment. There are Democrats who've got to be doing such polling. I don't know why we don't hear about it.

     If anyone knows of such a poll would you mind sending me an e mail via my blog, Tikun Olam [richardsilverstein.com].

     Posted by richards1052 at 12/28/2005 @ 03:27am

230. While Ken Lay is on the stand and under oath, wouldn't it be great fun to ask him all about his meetings with George Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney prior to 9/11?

     Wouldn't it be great to ask him if the faux California Energy Crisis which his company manufactured just prior to the 2000 elections was actually a scheme cooked up by he and Poppie Bush to compel Americans to install some oil experts in the White House? But what was to be Lay's reward? After all, he was GW's largest contributor and best friend of Poppie Bush. Poppie never planned on Enron going bust, and that's when things started to fall apart.

     Wouldn't if be nice to learn the details of how Lay and Cheney were divvying up the oil fields in Iraq on a big map, even before 9/11?

     Wouldn't it be enlightening to hear that Lay knew for a fact that 9/11 was going to happen as the pretext for the war plan which he clearly had knowledge of prior to 9/11?

     Why would you sit around countless energy planning meetings dividing up the oil fields of Iraq in advance of 9/11 unless there were a plan in place to make it possible?

     Such a plan would by necessity be a war plan, and this war plan was actually in place prior to 9/11.

     Surely any good war plan requires at its core a starting point, a trigger if you will that provides a good "cover story" to implement it. Clearly you can't just go around invading countries without a good reason...you need to be attacked first, then retaliate.

     Was 9/11 simply part of the war plan?

     Why wouldn't it have been?

     You can't hit the "GO" button without a pretext.

     9/11 was the pretext for the invasion of the Middle East - all by design.

     CAN YOU SAY COVERUP?

     Remember how it was Andersen Consulting which took the brunt of the legal retribution for the Enron debacle? Michael Chertoff was responsible for that. He put them out of business:

     Andersen attorneys thought Chertoff was asking too much and said the firm would be better off going to trial.

     Chertoff then warned the Andersen team that if there was a trial, he would play to win. His prosecutors would take "head shots" at Andersen, Chertoff said.

     http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-06-17-chertoff.htm

     FYI: Taking "head shots" is a term of the Mossad. It is their tactic for dealing with suicide bombers wearing vests. Mossad has taught this same technique to police forces across the United States.

     After Andersen's conviction, the government's Enron investigation gains momentum. After Justice Department criminal division chief Michael Chertoff obtained an indictment against Andersen in March, the prosecutor became the target of public demonstrations by Andersen employees. As the firm's employees confronted the reality that the indictment would drive Andersen out of business, they and others demanded to know why Chertoff wasn't going after his principle target, Enron.

     Chertoff's obstruction-of-justice indictment of Andersen quickly broke the firm.

     http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-06-17-andersen.htm

     http://www.madcowprod.com/01122004.html

     Michael Chertoff, appointed by President Bush to head the Homeland Security Department, may have shielded from criminal prosecution a former client suspected by law enforcement of having funneled millions of dollars directly to Osama Bin Laden while in charge of the U.S. Government's 9.11 investigation.

     "At the FBI's insistence, the White House had already forced ICE to give up its Operation Greenquest program investigating terrorism financing -- and forced Ridge to sign a memo pledging to keep his department away from similar investigations."

     http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66175

     Chertoff allowed scores of suspected Israeli terrorists and spies to quietly return to Israel. In several cases, Israeli suspects working for phoney moving companies, such as Urban Moving Systems from Weehawken, N.J., were caught driving moving vans which tested positive for explosives. On September 14, Dominic Suter, the owner of the moving company, which was found to be a Mossad front company, fled to Israel after FBI agents requested a second interview.

     One group of 5 Israelis was seen on the roof of Urban Moving Systems videotaping and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center. These Israeli agents were returned to Israel on visa violations.

     ABS 20/20 Investigation:

     http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm

     FOX News 4-Part Investigative Series:

     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

     Popular Mechanics:

     http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86989

     Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.

     But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.

     DOV ZAKHEIM:

     The CEO of Systems Planning's international division, Dov Zakheim, is a long-time DoD and Republican Party insider, and a founding member of the Neoconservative cult. While Bush was still Governor of Texas, Zakheim became one of his closest advisers, counseling him on defense technology and strategic aspects of Middle Eastern affairs. After the 2000 "election," Rummy rewarded Zakheim with a low-profile but strategically important position -- Comptroller, i.e. head money man, of the Defense Department.

     Zakheim also co-authored the Heritage Foundation's infamous tract, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," in which the Bush Administration's entire design for renewed global conquest was laid down a full year prior to 9-11. On page 63, the authors note that timely implementation of their ideas would require "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

     see for yourself:

     http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

     Dov S. Zakheim was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense on May 4, 2001.

     Left the Bush Administration in mid-2004 for Booz Allen.

     How Does Zakheim Fit In ?

     He helped mold the Mid-East policy, and controlled the Pentagon purse strings.

     Thanks to him, Israel, and their militia (Turkey), are awash in F-15's, F-16's, and the latest in offensive and defensive missile systems. Israel has a space program, ICBM's, nukes, and lots more.

     Zakheim, who is a dual Israeli/American citizen and a Shul Rabbi, has stalked the halls of US government for 25 yrs. He has set defense policy which influenced Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush Sr. and Jr. This rabid Zionist was the controller of the Pentagon when an audit discovered over a trillion dollars was missing.

     Most of Israel's armament was obtained thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified as military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.

     Zakheim is a rabid Zionist, who carries an Israel passport and is considered to be one of the top members of the secretive Illuminati . He predicts 9/11 and by sheer coincidence the Pentagon is hit by a remote controlled jet (Zakheim's ' SPC ' corporation is the premier company in the field).

     http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

     During his tenure as controller at the Pentagon from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004, over one trillion dollars was unaccounted for.

     Military information is jeopardized, military contractors billed the US for Israeli items, $50 million fighter jets are classified as surplus and the list goes on and on. As the scandal of the missing 3 trillion dollars surfaces the Rabbi quickly resigns.

     Here's how it all came together:

     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11385.htm

     Here's why:

     On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

     AND LESS THAN ONE MONTH LATER:

     On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."

     http://www.mediamonitors.net/khodr49.html

     Posted by plunger at 12/28/2005 @ 07:47am

231. If ever there was a time for impeaching a president and a Vice president, it is now, and for myriad reasons, not the least of which is the welfare of our country.

     Bush talks about spreading Democracy and freedom, at gun point, I might add, while doing his best to curtail both at home.

     What better lesson and example of real Democracy than the people holding their elected officials and their appointees accountable for their crimes, and to the fullest extent of constitutional and international law.

     This nation is far more vulnerable in this world than right-wingers can bring themaelves to believe, especially economically.

     No, no country on earth can beat us militarily, but they can certainly stop us from winning; witness Vietnam and Iraq.

     Also, they can put the squeeze on us economically, when most of our debt is held by people who do not like us very much or, at least, don't like Bush and company.

     I say that the people must demand accountability, even if we have to organize a citizen's occupation of the capital. Resistance is imperative now. The Bush administration have made war criminals of us all, albeit, for the most part, unwitting. So, unless there is massive, visable dissent, we will be giving tacit approval to everything this administration has done in our names and with our blood and treasure.

     I, for one, reached my limit a long time ago. Impeachment should be front and center as a campaign issue this election year. I will be hard pressed to vote for anyone who is too damn whimpy to stand up for what is right and put their country above party loyalty and their own political ambitions.

     Posted by Trammell at 12/28/2005 @ 08:13am

232. Can someone explain how....

     on the one hand, leftists on "The Nation" are always complaining about how 20-45 Democrats "sell out" on Republican bills...

     yet those same "sell-outs" are going to risk their political careers to impeach Bush and Cheney, just because "afterdowningstreet.org" and Katrina vanden Heuval want them to?

     Posted by Mask at 12/28/2005 @ 09:13am

233. Yeah, but where is the stain on the dress...er, smoking gun...?

     Posted by John Earl at 12/28/2005 @ 09:15am

234. John Earl -

     The smoking gun is out of Bush's own mouth - he's admitted to doing this and has asserted that he plans to go right on breaking the damn law. That ought to be enough for anyone to chuck this bum out.

     Posted by skeletonman at 12/28/2005 @ 09:21am

235. Plunger -- great stuff on Chertoff & Enron. I'm rushing to work, but did yo mention Chertoff's dual citizenship? (US/Israeli)

     Also, before the California Recall vote, I got an email from Greg Palast called "Arnold's Enron Secret" [alternet.org], detailing how Arnold met with Ken Lay May 17, 2001, at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, to hash out the details of the Texas coup of blue-state titan California, to follow the sabotage-by-falsified-power-costs.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 09:25am

236. Actually, Mask, what is needed are 20-30 Statesmen and -women who will finally have the gumption to put our great country and its Constitution before party and assert the checks and balances that the Framers provided for in the (inevitable) event of this sort of action by the executive branch.

     This usurpation of power IS what is meant by High Crimes and Misdemeanors and now is the time that true Americans (not GWB-cabal americans) will stand and assert their collective rights.

     The problem is that Bush's 'replacement' (let's face it, dubya is the one a heartbeat from the presidency, and with dickie-boy's ticker, that ain't no joke) is so singularly evil that getting rid of him first is more important than ousting than the man who would be king.

     Make no mistake, the days of this cabal are limited to sometime before 1/20/2009.

     Posted by skeletonman at 12/28/2005 @ 09:31am

237. This is all very heartening, but we have been here before...just before the 2004 election. All indicators said Kerry had it in the bag in the days just ahead, but, lo and behold, such was not to be because all those indicators were just daggone wrong, couldn't have been any wronger we were told. Alito WILL be confirmed, most Rethugs believing that the pResident should get the people he wants (unless you're Harriet Miers) and then it is a fait accompli that he will get whatever he wants. Roberts has already cleared the way with his decision 4 days after Bush talked to him about his nomination, to allow the king to hold anyone he designates, indefinitely...oversight be damned.

     The biggest thing any of us can do besides pushing for impeachment AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE of BOTH Cheney and Bush, is to insist on open source code voting machines and tabulators and bipartisan and provably independent certification companies. Otherwise, in spite of all we know and just as we were told in '04, the "people" will miraculously just barely "vote" in these crooks again. Express your outrage that any state in our union will use machines with secret source codes. If ever there was an issue/procedure that should be federally standardized, it is the voting issue. Start making noise, loudly and lots of it, NOW. And we can still shoot for impeachment, as farfetched as that now seems.

     Posted by hatcherlaw at 12/28/2005 @ 09:39am

238. Does the mainstream care?

     Unless you think Diebold rigged Ohio, which is a pretty big stretch, does average Joe care that the President of this country is wiping his ass with the Constitution?

     Pretty much everyone knew that W was a lying, incompetent, useless leader going into 2004, but they still voted for the moron because American's expect their leaders to be incompetent liars! What American's can't accept are leaders from the Northeast....even though that is where the Bush dynasty is from! Conveniently, if you lie and say you're from Texas it's OK since lying is OK but being from the Northeast is not!

     Has anti-Northeastern racism gone too far?!

     Posted by colmes at 12/28/2005 @ 09:48am

239. "which is a pretty big stretch"

     Exactly! That's the secret! Big lies succeed where small lies fail! Hitler stated it in Mein Kampf. No time to type, but check it out here at on Wikipedia.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 10:00am

240. Speaking of Bush electronis snooping, it is now known that the Bush Gang used electronic snooping to spy on members of the United Nations Security Council in an effort to push and manipulate the Security Council into passing a war resolution prior to the attack on Iraq. The fact that the Bush Gang tried to get a resolution passed indicates that the Bush lawyers knew that a war resolution was necessary to make the war legal. A war resolution was not passed. (NOTE TO LOVE LIBERTY et all: This destroys your limp argument that the war was legal.)

     Posted by philbq at 12/28/2005 @ 10:31am

241. PHILBQ:

     Where did you hear that about UNSC snooping?

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 11:28am

242. JORCHEIM,

     The snooping took place in the weeks prior to the UNSC vote on the resolution over military force against Iraq. I heard it on NPR at the time and waited for further reaction in print and on television. I didn't find anything. As I recall, the Brits knew about it and made it known to the press. Quite literally, we had bugged offices of members of UNSC to determine how the vote might proceed and who might need nudging. As it turned out, this action, like so many of the last several years, accomplished nothing but further ill-will to this country.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/28/2005 @ 11:53am

243. The true "noble cause" of this era is to fight these modern Beelzebubs whenever and wherever they appear. The objective is to terminate their fecund activities. Our tactics should be "Paine-like, i.e., common sense and reason applied in line with the principles of the Constitution. It is not an understatement that peace and prosperity for our people, as well as the rest of the world's people, depend upon our success. As for the hacks and reactionaries, like flies at a picnic, or the common cold, they will always be with us. Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 12/28/2005 @ 03:15am

     Progressive bloggers please take note of the above: it's very good advice. Forget about "nuancing" the right wing-nut enemy into conversational submission let alone persuading him/her to see events from your point of view. As the above blogger intelligently suggests, use logic, hard cold facts, and reason (a few well-placed expletives are OK as well) to grind down the political enemy. The Bushies consistently use unsubstantiated opinion, heresay, and irrevant historical examples to create their house of cards. Bush is now 100% indefensible and they know it, so consequently they resort to whatever subtrifuge they can grab to change the conversational topic.

     Posted by DownWithW at 12/28/2005 @ 12:02pm

244. Why's it a mystery, Mask? We're only talking tactical flexibility when we support a "democrat" one moment on one issue, and reject them as "sell outs" on another issue. I'm glad you asked this, though. Maybe it will clear up the notion all too often expressed on these boards that those of us no longer interested in voting for the "democrats" national tickets are looking for some kind of political purity. Hell, I voted for that fuck Clinton in 1992, and I had barely looked at his program or events in the national party that year, as you know. I no longer gave a shit about what the "democrats" did inside their national convention, I got off that merry go round four years before and have rarely looked back in anything but mild curiosity. I just knew I wasn't going to vote for George Sr, or any member of the Prescott Bush dynasty, which I first became familiar with when "Poppy" was running for senate down in Texas back in 1970. I hated Dukakis' cold ass, I couldn't stand Clinton and his country ward heel routines, which for me, were nothing but a throwback to the democratic party tactics of Jody Powell and Hamilton Jordan. And four years later, I'd seen enough to convince me to vote third party consistantly. The only way I'd vote for a "democrat" now is if the "republicans" actually nominated a full blown fascist, and as cynical as I am about this country (I do, after all, work in the U.S. labor movement primarily, and the current state of our membership as regards critical evalution and action against the bureaucracy leaves a lot to be desired) I don't believe they'll ever get away with it. Which is not to say I don't think they'll try, by the way. But I do think one of the great things about this country is that it has a combative electorate, most of which is very quiet right now. I and others make it our business to try and wake it up. Sometimes a "democrat" can help in that regard, for example, the work of a state rep named Bob Hasegawa out here in West Seattle has been very tight. But Hasegawa is the exception who proves the rule. There are damn few "democrats" of progressive quality doing their footwork. Nearly all the rest are opportunists and sell-outs who can be useful upon occasion, but that's it.

     Posted by Legba at 12/28/2005 @ 12:11pm

245. A lot of scrolling to catch up since yesterday morning. What is truly interesting to observe is the range of "progressive" thought posted here in the past 24 hours. First sifting through the range of insults, slurs, patronizations, then moving on to the brief, series of circumgyrated liberal adulation postings, I am struck by the height of intellectual arousal (well, maybe not). The latter ruminations reminding one more of the line from Night Before Christmas, "visions of sugar plums danced in their heads".

     While you dream of impeachments and a new "socialist-democratic" government, you continue to do so by ignoring the reality of our country's history and the current political construct of the citizenry. Here are a few points of reality to help bring your feet back to the ground (although I would say Legba is not under similar illusions as many of you).

     1. The Democrats as a Party, will not (nor do they desire) a remake of the Constitution to form the "more perfect union" many of you envision. They only desire to enjoy the same power the Republicans have at this time.

     2. Bush has not committed any impeachable offense(s). The war with Iraq was legal within his constitutional authority. Congress (as I have mentioned before) can end the war by cutting off funding. The so-called spying is nothing new by Administrations and will lead nowhere for those so inclined to charge. Save this if you like, because by next November it will not be an issue in the mid term elections.

     Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.

     "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

     That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.

     More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." ...

     In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

     In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.

     http://tinyurl.co.uk/sauf [url]

     From Chicago Tribune

     By John Schmidt Op-Ed December 21, 2005

     President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

     Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. ...

     But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. ...

     John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

     3. Bush has regained the support of 87% of registered Republicans based upon current polling data. Furthermore, we have been very successful in continuing our voter registration program which has been central to the election success of the past 11 years.

     4. Only through a rewriting of the constitution and the emergence of at least one strong 3rd party, can you even hope to realize your visions for the future.

     I would like to issue a friendly challenge to you visionaries to explain realistically how you intend to implement this political sea change in the United States.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 1:34pm

246. Legba,

     Wow! So GWB in 2004 was not a full blown fascist?

     How many more GWB types do you think this country and constitution can survive?

     Posted by colmes at 12/28/2005 @ 1:35pm

247. It will not happen overnight, but we will start with the 2006 elections, LL. If Democrats can take back either house of Congress, you can bet your ass that the Clinton investigations will pale to what you will see in Bush's last two years. With the laundry list that has somehow surfaced even though Republicans control everything and a we have a sheepish MSM (but they are awakening from their slumber), talk of impeachment at that point will not be an idea of the fringe. The gerrymandering that Republicans have done to legislative districts might forestall the swing of the pendulum, but it IS swinging to the Left - Bush is doing everything to ensure this.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 1:56pm

248. Let me add an additional yet crucial fact to the commentary I posted at 1:34 p.m.

     There is a critical element that seems to always be overlooked by those of progressive/liberal leaning when they constance denounce the programs/decisions enacted by Bush during his presidency.

     Bush ran on (and we elected him) based upon his promise to carryout and implement issues central to conservatives.

     1. We were seeking someone to reduce Income, Capital Gains taxes and eliminate the Estate Tax.

     2. We wanted reductions in Federal social spending which we consider unconstitutional (here we feel Bush has let us down)

     3. We wanted a strong military restored and a president who would not be afraid to use our military strength as necessary (and he has).

     4. We wanted a president who would put original intent judges on the Federal Courts (and he has)

     5. Yes, we wanted a president who could keep his pants zippered in the Oval Office.

     6. We wanted a president who would defend the integrity of the second amendment (and he has)

     There is more, but I think the point is made. Bush did not invent his agenda, he is carrying out the agenda that conservatives were seeking. He has failed in some areas, like not taking a stronger stand against the Congress and their desire to spend the taxpayer's money; He has been too willing to promote Federal intrusion into education and Medicare.

     But we would rather have the 3/4 of the pie we sought than none of it. For that, conservatives are grateful to President Bush.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 1:59pm

249. Nope, I don't believe GWB in 2004 was a "full blown fascist", and to equate his factions with a mass movement with street soldiers (brown shirts) that managed to fairly successfully plow over most significant grassroots opposition inside of the German labor parties and any other social democratic opposition within five years of the time they attained real power is to minimize what the fascist experience was. Nor do I believe that he will ever be able to attain that kind of power. Katrina, horrendous as it was, created splits in his base that he will never be able to repair, and opened up other questions about his leadership. He will be playing dodge and weave for the remainder of his presidency, largely due to his stupid war, which will continue to hang about his neck as the albatross it so justly is.

     Do I think fascism's a possibility? Yes. But I don't think the ruling class of this country needs a fascist movement right now. The U.S. has commodities in surplus. As long as people can get them, many of us will not pay attention to political questions. When the real nature of the debt service economy becomes more apparent, fascism will be a higher possibility, as credit's going to implode, and it will be much harder for a wider section of people to get cheap goods, including many of the people who currently support Bush and other forms of reactionary politics. And it's important to note this, because the right isn't a monolith. At that point, a fascist power could emerge, but I doubt it will come from the Bushies.

     I think we're far more likely to see it from folks like the Clintons, who for some strange reason, have been able to convince lots of working class people Clintonism is for them just as Bush has convinced sections of the rural poor. The Clinton machine and its legacy (the Walmart Economy) is much more adept at getting people like what we used to call poverty pimps, you know, community leaders who are lining their pockets like the Jeff Fords in places like Chicago, to adapt the hardest hit communities to fascist measures and controls. Witness, for example, the relative quiesence with which New Yorkers treated David Dinkin's NYPD, because he was a "brother", and yet police department killings were just as frequent under Dinkins as under Giuliani, and Dinkins was just as cold about it, other then in his willingness to co-opt public rage with a ceremonial office of bureaucrats who were able to do nothing about police violence in the inner city neighborhoods of New York City. No, I think if and when fascism comes to the United States, it will be because a lot of our so-called "mainstream" friends in the "democratic" party will have softened us up for the kill. So I guess we'd best agree to disagree on this issue.

     Posted by Legba at 12/28/2005 @ 2:05pm

250. LL: That is all fine and dandy for someone who voted for Bush. What about the majority in 2000 who did not? Should they just shut their traps and live with it? Or fail to point out the problems Bush's agenda has caused 5 years later?

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 2:06pm

251. It will not happen overnight, but we will start with the 2006 elections, LL. If Democrats can take back either house of Congress, you can bet your ass that the Clinton investigations will pale to what you will see in Bush's last two years. With the laundry list that has somehow surfaced even though Republicans control everything and a we have a sheepish MSM (but they are awakening from their slumber), talk of impeachment at that point will not be an idea of the fringe. The gerrymandering that Republicans have done to legislative districts might forestall the swing of the pendulum, but it IS swinging to the Left - Bush is doing everything to ensure this.

     Posted by HMAN23 12/28/2005 @ 1:56pm

     I suggest HM that you do a little bit of research into where the numbers are for the Congressional elections, you may not like it.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 2:11pm

252. LL: That is all fine and dandy for someone who voted for Bush. What about the majority in 2000 who did not? Should they just shut their traps and live with it? Or fail to point out the problems Bush's agenda has caused 5 years later?

     Posted by HMAN23 12/28/2005 @ 2:06pm

     Of course not HM! You would be better served though by restating your response as to voicing your differences rather than calling them the Bush problems which is a political loser.

     I am one that favors having distinctly different proposals for the American people and then let them decide which course they prefer. When they believe that was a wrong choice, the voters are fairly good about changing course. That is one reason why I love our system.

     The problem that many like yourself have been faced with is a lack of political leadership to represent your viewpoint. I probably would add (and very subjectly of course) that even with that, most Americans would choose a different course. I am more than willing to be proven wrong should that occur.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 2:19pm

253. There is a lot of logic to the various apologists position that impeachment is highly unlikely.

     The reason that Clinton was impeached was because his "crime" was both simple to understand (lying under oath) and salacious. An impeachment proceeding needs a huge groundswell of sustained public outrage.

     You will not get that level of outrage from the criminal mismanagement of Katrina hurricane disaster relief. You will not get that with the Downing Street memo's which showed how the war was pre-planned. You will not get that when the President oversteps his authority and authorizes domestic spying. You will not get that for Plamegate.....and on and on.

     It has to be simple and it probably has to be sex related.

     Unfortunately, our society has been reduced to mindless soundbites. In Nixon's day it was tougher because a much larger part of the population was politically active and aware (thanks to the draft).

     In other words, a sitting President today can get away with almost anything so long as it doesn't involve sex.

     Posted by colmes at 12/28/2005 @ 3:16pm

254. "There are many reasons why it is crucial that the Democrats regain control of Congress in '06, but consider this one: If they do, there may be articles of impeachment introduced and the estimable John Conyers, who has led the fight to defend our constitution, would become Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Wouldn't that be a truly just response to the real high crimes and misdemeanors that this lawbreaking president has so clearly committed?"

     I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I believe that the Republicans will not allow it to happen. If anyone thinks that the elections in 2000 and 2004 were dirty, dishonest and stolen, just wait for 2006. The Republicans have shown that they know how to steal elections and that they are unafraid to do it. In 2006, they will have more at stake than ever (i.e. possible removal from office directly to a prison cell) and hence will be even more motivated to insure a favorable outcome.

     Posted by robgo2 at 12/28/2005 @ 3:27pm

255. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I believe that the Republicans will not allow it to happen. If anyone thinks that the elections in 2000 and 2004 were dirty, dishonest and stolen, just wait for 2006. The Republicans have shown that they know how to steal elections and that they are unafraid to do it. In 2006, they will have more at stake than ever (i.e. possible removal from office directly to a prison cell) and hence will be even more motivated to insure a favorable outcome.

     Posted by ROBGO2 12/28/2005 @ 3:27pm

     ROB,

     You really are displaying a lack of knowledge on how American politics and voting operate. It is not by stealing elections as you as outlined (we all know that the Democrats have controlled that means for over a 125 years-Boss Tweed and Tamany Hall, Mayor Daley and Chicago, Kennedy president thanks to all the dead voters, illegal alien voters in Southern California 2000 elections, etc, etc.).

     What you thankfully fail to recognize is how the Republican Party has worked for the past 25 years to organize social conservatives who tend to vote in greater numbers and more consistently. This we do unless we need to send a message which we do by occasionally by staying home in large numbers when we don't believe they are listening to us.

     Just recently we did that to Governor Schwarzennegar when the polling data showed that Christian conservatives did not turn out. We were unhappy that the Governor was not really upholding the agenda we elected him to carry out and we sent a message to him at the voting booth.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 4:13pm

256. Well, LL - Bush is the president. You would rather I just voice my opposition to a particular policy without naming the person behind it? If Bush takes ownership over his adminsitration then they ARE his problems. Given the dissatisfaction that the majority of Americans have with Bush's job performance, I fail to see how tying Bush to the problems is a political loser. Tying Gore to Clinton was a Republican strategy in 2000 afterall, and look what it helped accomplish.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 4:25pm

257. Well, LL - Bush is the president. You would rather I just voice my opposition to a particular policy without naming the person behind it? If Bush takes ownership over his adminsitration then they ARE his problems. Given the dissatisfaction that the majority of Americans have with Bush's job performance, I fail to see how tying Bush to the problems is a political loser. Tying Gore to Clinton was a Republican strategy in 2000 afterall, and look what it helped accomplish.

     Posted by HMAN23 12/28/2005 @ 4:25pm

     HM,

     Please then, by all means, I hope that you and other liberals pursue this current course. As a veteran of working in elections since 1960, it warms my heart to see opponents seek a course as you and others here are seeking.

     The problem for the Dems right now is that apart from people like Bob Bechtel, they have few voices who are getting enough attention to chart a winning course for the Democrats. That is to the advantage of conservatives and we would hate to stop an opponent from shooting themselves in the foot.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 4:30pm

258. look. I know it is the lefties wet dream to have Bush impeached for something but alas it will stay a dream only. However, i do appreciate y'all looking and sounding so wigged out.

     Posted by vrwc at 12/28/2005 @ 4:43pm

259. LL:

     As a purported election veteran, you must admit then that the Republican successes in the last 25 years are due in large part to castigating Democrats and liberals as opposed to running on purported positives of a conservative platform. Conservative campaigns are based largely on instilling fear in what a vote for the opponent will bring. Just look at the presidential elections since 1980. Reagan ran on Carter's supposed failed liberal policies; Bush I used Willie Horton against Dukakis; Bush II used Clinton against Gore; Bush II used swift-boat attacks against Kerry and the notion that Democrats could not keep us safe from terrorists.

     Morevoer, during the Clinton years, Republicans had to raise scandals having nothing to do with Clinton's actual job performance in office (Paula Jones, Lewinsky, Whitewater, etc.). I think the electorate will be much more concerned with what GWB has actually done, or not done, in office. His resume provides ample examples of what a failure he has been. Given he wears the mantle of a conservative, conservatives will face the reprecussions. Why do you think he is beginning to have so many problems with his own party in the legislature? They are running from him.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/28/2005 @ 5:03pm

260. No HM you are going by what the media portrays. If you look at polling results, you get an entirely different picture.

     Using Reagan and Bush II as prime examples, their victories are owed more to the desire for conservatives to re-establish 1)the image of the presidency, 2)the vow to cut taxes, 3)an anti abortion, anti-pro homosexual rights moral stance, and 4)a strong military. These 4 issues are at the heart of conservative politics and carry the day with conservatives and many independents sufficient to win elections.

     The media loves to play up negative politics so they can portray themselves as upstanding standard bearers of "decency in politics". First of all, that has never existed in America (sadly), and secondly as noted above, it has priortiy mainly with the MSM.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 5:12pm

261. Furthermore HM,

     It was not difficult for Reagan to point out Carter's failed liberal politics. Too many of us lived through the double digit mortgage and inflation rates.

     Dukakis was his own worst enemy (just read or listen to his campaign people). He was a pathetic candidate. Every true liberal in the past 30 plus years has gone down to crushing defeat in national politics.

     Maybe you ought to reflect on that little fact.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 5:15pm

262. LOVELIBERTY:

     You said:

     Every true liberal in the past 30 plus years has gone down to crushing defeat in national politics.

     My response:

     How do you explain the success of Paul Wellstone, or Bernie Sanders? Face it, your comment is ill-informed, and plain wrong.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 5:18pm

263. Whats the strateragy now Turdy?///

     Posted by Shredd1 at 12/28/2005 @ 5:40pm

264. Jorcheim,

     I said national politics. Senators and House Reps are elected by their states, not nationally.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 5:58pm

265. Israel and the Neocons, The Libby Affair and the Internal War

     By James Petras

     12/27/05 "ICH" -- -- The national debate, which the indictment of Irving Lewis Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice has aroused in the mass media, has failed to address the most basic questions concerning the deep structural context, which influenced his felonious behavior. The most superficial explanation was that Libby, by exposing Valerie Plame (a CIA employee), acted out of revenge to punish her husband Wilson for exposing the lies put forth by Bush about Iraq's "importation" of uranium from Niger. Other journalists claim that Libby acted to cover up the fabrications to go to war. The assertion however raises a deeper question -- who were the fabricators of war propaganda, who was Libby protecting? And not only the "fabricators of war", but the strategic planners, speech-makers and architects of war who acted hand in hand with the propagandists and the journalists who disseminated the propaganda? What is the link between all these high- level functionaries, propagandists and journalists?

     Equally important given the positions of power which this cabal occupied, and the influence they exercised in the mass media as well as in designing strategic policy, what forces were engaged in bringing criminal charges against a key operative of the cabal?

     Libby's rise to power was part and parcel of the ascendancy of the neo-conservatives to the summits of US policymaking. Libby was a student, protégé, and collaborator with Paul Wolfowitz for over 25 years. Libby along with Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Kagan, Cohen, Rubin, Pollack, Chertoff, Fleisher, Kristol, Marc Grossman, Shumsky and a host of other political operators were long term believers and aggressive proponents of a virulently militaristic tendency of Zionism linked with the rightwing Likud Party of Israel. Early in the 1980's, Wolfowitz and Feith were charged with passing confidential documents to Israel, the latter temporarily losing his security clearance.

     The ideologues begin their "Long March" through the institutions of the state. In some cases, advisers to rightwing pro-Israel congressmen, others in the lower levels of the Pentagon and State Department, in other cases as academics or leaders of conservative think tanks in Washington during the Reagan and Bush senior regimes. With the election of Bush in 2001, they moved into major strategic positions in the government, and as the principal ideologues and propagandists for a sequence of wars against Arab adversaries of the Israeli State. Leading neocons, like Libby, drew up a war strategy for the Likud government in 1996, and then recycled the document for the US war against Iraq before and immediately after 9/11/01. Along with their rise to the most influential positions of power in the Bush administration, the neocons attracted new recruits, like New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

     more...

     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11385.htm

     Posted by plunger at 12/28/2005 @ 6:11pm

266. Evangelicals exploit Air Force Academy; military officials interlocked with local activists By Devlin Buckley Online Journal Contributing Writer

     Dec 23, 2005, 00:50

     Controversy over the influence of Christian fundamentalism at the academy is nothing new, and the lawsuit is only the latest development in an ongoing struggle -- the source and extent of which have been largely underreported by the corporate media -- among evangelical organizations, academy leaders, congressional lawmakers, and First Amendment advocates.

     The Air Force Academy, located in Colorado Springs, is surrounded by right-wing evangelical groups, several of which maintain close relationships with the academy's faculty, staff, and cadets. These groups and the military officials who follow them have been integrating evangelical Christianity into official academy activities for at least 12 years. Over this time, they have promoted evangelical beliefs to cadets, used their religion as a tool for military training, and encouraged religious conformity on campus.

     'Spiritual Gettysburg'

     In addition to being headquarters for Air Force Space Command, Northern Command, NORAD, numerous Air Force bases, and the Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs is also home to the nation's largest, most influential and politically active evangelical organizations: James Dobson's Focus on the Family, which is so large that it maintains its own zip code, claims more than 200 million followers worldwide, and is located directly across the highway from the academy.

     "My problem is not with Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity or even evangelical Christianity," he said. "It's that whenever a religion -- in this case a group of people -- tries to engage the machinery of the state, it is constitutionally repugnant and violative."

     Captain Melinda Morton, formally the No. 2 chaplain at the academy, believes she was removed from her position for speaking out against the influence of religious groups at the military school. In May, she said the academy "is surrounded by very powerful evangelical organizations . . . that have a lot of influence at the Air Force Academy and at the White House."

     more... http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_363.shtml

     Posted by plunger at 12/28/2005 @ 6:17pm

267. It was not difficult for Reagan to point out Carter's failed liberal politics. Too many of us lived through the double digit mortgage and inflation rates. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/28/2005 @ 5:58pm

     LOVE LIBERTY: The creation of double-digit inflation was not the fault of Jimmy Carter. It was the result of the emergence of the U.S. from a bitter and protracted war (i.e. Vietnam) coupled with the Arabian Oil Embargo of 1973 and whopping increases in pertoleum resulting thereafter. At the time it was called "stagflation". As things grew progressively worse Nixon imposed wage and price controls in 1973-74, and subsequently Ford created the infamous "WIN" (wip inflation now) program. None of that worked, of course, and thus Carter inherited these problems. His problem was that he could do little to solve them.

     Please get your history straight, young man. I'd suggest you shit-can that revisionist crap you've been absorbing and stick with REALITY. It just makes so much more sense, and people can then actually understand what you're talking about! Most folks have a difficult time relating to Limbaughian propaganda.

     Posted by DownWithW at 12/28/2005 @ 6:18pm

268. LL: "It was not difficult for Reagan to point out Carter's failed liberal politics. Too many of us lived through the double digit mortgage and inflation rates."

     And? The entire western world and much of the developing world suffered through the same.

     Will you, in ten years ask why your children/grandchildren are being asked to foot the bill of the bush legacy?

     Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 6:19pm

269. The Foreign Policy of 20 Million Would-Be Immortals

     There are approximately 20 million Americans who believe that they may share this experience. It all depends on timing. If the State of Israel is drawing close to its tribulation period, then those Christians who are alive exactly 42 months before Israel's Great Tribulation begins will escape death. This is what Left Behind is all about. Non-Christians will be left behind. They will not avoid death.

     Should anything happen to remove Israel from the Middle East during the lifetimes of these people, then the expected Great Tribulation will have to be postponed, probably for centuries, until another State of Israel is established. The appearance of the State of Israel in 1948 would then turn out to have been an eschatologically irrelevant political event.

     Should Israel ever be "pushed into the sea," these people will have to face what the rest of us began facing early in life: the prospect of our statistically inescapable physical death. This is unacceptable to them, just as it would be for the rest of us if we honestly thought we could beat the mortality table. This belief in death-free living is the rarely stated psychological motivation behind American fundamentalism's unwavering support of the State of Israel.

     more...

     http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north188.html

     Posted by plunger at 12/28/2005 @ 6:19pm

270. http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_members&Number= 1092638&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1#Post1092638

     Their big moment arrived with the collapse of the Twin Towers. The American public and politicians were in a state of shock, completely disoriented, unable to understand a world that had changed overnight. The neo-cons were the only group with a ready explanation and a solution. Only nine days after the outrage, William Kristol (the son of the group's founder, Irving Kristol) published an Open Letter to President Bush, asserting that it was not enough to annihilate the network of Osama bin Laden, but that it was also imperative to "remove Saddam Hussein from power" and to "retaliate" against Syria and Iran for supporting Hizbullah.

     Following is a short list of the main characters.

     The Open Letter was published in the Weekly Standard, founded by Kristol with the money of ultra-right press mogul Rupert Murdoch, who donated $ 10 million to the cause. It was signed by 41 leading neo-cons, including Norman Podhoretz, a Jewish former leftist who has become an extreme right-wing icon, editor of the prestigious Encounter magazine, and his wife, Midge Decter, also a writer, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Studies, Robert Kagan, also of the Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, and, of course, Richard Perle.

     Perle is a central character in this play. Until recently he was the chairman of the Defense Policy Board of the Defense Department, which also includes Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross. Perle is a director of the Jerusalem Post, now owned by extreme right-wing Zionists. In the past he was an aide to Senator Henry Jackson, who led the fight against the Soviet Union on behalf of the Jews who wanted to leave. He is a leading member of the influential right-wing American Enterprise Institute. Lately he was obliged to resign from his Defense Department position, when it became known that a private corporation had promised to pay him almost a million dollars for he benefit of his influence in the administration.

     That Open Letter was, in effect, the beginning of the Iraq war. It was eagerly received by the Bush administration, with members of the group already firmly established in some of its leading positions. Paul Wolfowitz, the father of the war, is No. 2 in the Defense Department, where another friend of Perle's, Douglas Feith, heads the Pentagon Planning Board. John Bolton is State Department Undersecretary. Eliot Abrams, responsible for the Middle East in the National Security Council, was connected with the Iran-Contra-Israel scandal. The main hero of the scandal, Oliver North, sits in the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, together with Michael Ledeen, another hero of the scandal. Headvocates total war not only against Iraq, but also against Israel's other enemies, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

     Most of these people , together with Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, are associated with the "Project for the New American Century", which published a White Paper in 2002, with the aim 'to preserve and enhance this 'American peace'"--meaning American control of the world.

     Meyrav Wurmser (Meyrav is a chic new Israeli first name) is Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute. She also writes for the Jerusalem Post and is co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute that is, according to the London Guardian, connected with Israeli Army Intelligence. MEMRI feeds the media and politicians with highly selective quotations from extreme Arab publications. Meyrav's husband, Davis Wurmser, is at Perle's American Enterprise Institute, heading Middle East Studies. Mention should also be made of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy of our old acquaintance, Dennis Ross, who for years was in charge of the "peace process" in the Middle East.

     In all the important papers there are people close to the group, such as William Safire, a man hypnotized by Sharon, in the New York Times and Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. Another Perle friend, Robert Bartley, is the editor of the Wall Street Journal.

     If the speeches of Bush and Cheney often sound as if they came from the lips of Sharon, one of the reasons may be that their speechwriters, Joseph Shattan, Mathew Scully and John McConnell, are neo-cons, as is Cheneys Chief-of-Staff, Lewis Libby.

     The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. The founding fathers were Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, who once got a jet plane as a present from Menachem Begin, and Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition and the Christian Broadcasting Network, which help to finance the Christian Embassy in Jerusalem of J.W. van der Hoeven, an outfit that supports the settlers and their right-wing allies.

     ...The man who symbolizes this victory is General Jay Garner, who has just been appointed chief of the civilian administration in Iraq.

     He is no anonymous general who has been picked accidentally. Garner is the ideological partner of Paul Wolfowitz and the neo-cons.

     Two years ago he signed, together with 26 other officers, a petition organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs

     Posted by plunger at 12/28/2005 @ 6:25pm

271. I'm looking for an appropriate title for our pal George now that his "stature" is so much more exhaulted, now that he's clearly above the law. Actually, he'd fit in to the Roman Imperial Period nicely, somewhere between Augustus and Nero in temperment actually. He'll probably demand that the Senate declare him a god. Maybe then sweet little 'ol Laura can become a goddess, too.

     We could call him "Augustus Bushus" or "George Caesar (salad)" or how about "Bushius Georgeus Tyrannus". It's hard. So many possibilities to choose from.

     Posted by DownWithW at 12/28/2005 @ 6:30pm

272. 20 END-OF-THE-WORLD PROPHECIES: PREDICTIONS THAT "THE END" WILL BE BEFORE 2010

     Overview:

     Predictions have been made of several events that some Christians believe are related: the second coming of Jesus, the war of Armageddon, the arrival on earth of the Antichrist, the Tribulation, the Rapture, some horrendous natural disaster, etc. Jewish, Islamic, psychic and occult predictions have also been offered as well. 1

     We have listed over 7 dozen past predictions of the end of the world which have one factor in common: none ever came true. There is every likelihood that most (perhaps all) of these future predictions will not materialize either.

     We have been criticized by some of our readers for whipping up hysteria about the end of the world. Our intent is the exact opposite: we want to dampen the level of panic. We hope that by listing many dozens of past predictions all of which have failed, that people will realize that some very important individuals have been totally wrong when they predicted the end of the world. End of the world predictions have been common throughout Christianity and other religions for almost 2000 years. Thus, the public has little to fear from prophets who predict a particular date for the world's end.

     1999 to 2009: Jerry Falwell predicted in 1999-JAN that Jesus could return within ten years. But before that can happen, he said that the Antichrist must appear. Referring to the Antichrist, Falwell said: "Is he alive and here today? Probably. Because when he appears during the Tribulation period he will be a full-grown counterfeit of Christ. Of course he'll be Jewish. Of course he'll pretend to be Christ. And if in fact the Lord is coming soon, and he'll be an adult at the presentation of himself, he must be alive somewhere today." Rabbi James Rudin of the American Jewish Committee suggested that Christians should be careful about making such comments. His said that Falwell's statement "plays into some latent and historical anti-Semitism from the past." 2 Rev. Falwell later apologized for his comment.

     http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl1.htm

     Posted by plunger at 12/28/2005 @ 6:40pm

273. "Georgio Tyrannus a'la Rovus" or "Bushus Invadus" or "George-with-his head-in-the-Commodus" or "Romulus Bushius Stupidius" or "Georgius Slimus Enemius" or "W. Lovus Richius" or "Georgius Corruptus" or "W Deaf-Dum-and Blind-Us" I could just go on and on and on.

     Posted by DownWithW at 12/28/2005 @ 6:41pm

274. CONTROLLED PRESS HIDES CHERTOFF'S ISRAELI ROOTS *PIC*

     Posted By: ChristopherBollyn Date: Friday, 4 March 2005, 1:32 p.m.

     Although the media scrutinized Bernard Kerik, President George W. Bush's first choice to head DHS, and uncovered embarrassing details about his mother, there was no discussion of Chertoff's mother, who played a noteworthy role in the creation of the Zionist state in Palestine.

     The omission of Chertoff's mother's Zionist past suggests that there is an effort by the media to conceal his ties to Israel and his status as a "de jure" Israeli national, by birth.

     Under Israeli law, a child born to an Israeli citizen, including children born outside of Israel as first generation out of Israel, is considered an Israeli citizen. The child remains an Israeli national until he or she formally renounces their Israeli nationality.

     http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66175

     Remember when the Kerick nomination blew up and everyone said "wow, I can't believe they even nominated this guy given his past...didn't they do a background check...what were they thinking?

     What they were thinking was they would put forth a strawman, with no intention of having him confirmed, only to have their REAL choice sail through the confirmation process.

     Think real hard...have they done the same thing again recently?

     When they put forth the name of Harriett Meirs...do you really believe their goal was to have her nominated? This is a tactic!

     Now read about Mr. Chertoff, who rules America and wrote the Patriot Act...

     http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2872

     Posted by plunger at 12/28/2005 @ 6:46pm

275. LA Times: "When President Clinton took office, he fired all the U.S. attorneys who had served under his Republican predecessor except one: New Jersey U.S. Attorney Michael Chertoff."

     That's some exceptional guy, as the article shows. It reveals something quite out of the ordinary about Michael Chertoff.

     Not a word from anyone in power about Chertoff's successful defense of a known bin Laden financier. Even though the Bergen Record newspaper had published the facts of the case in a series of articles. This news was never picked up nationally -- somehow not being newsworthy enough to rate a few lines in the major press -- and they call this "freedom" and "democracy," ad nauseum.

     Michael Chertoff was confirmed by the senate in a vote of 98-0.

     http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2005/10/butcher-of-new-orleans.html

     http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm#_ftn24

     Think back to the Katrina debacle. Remember how Bush stepped out in front of Chertoff and said "blame me" - not Chertoff?

     Bush was protecting Chertoff. What does Chertoff have on the Bush family? Who does Chertoff really work for?

     Posted by plunger at 12/28/2005 @ 6:50pm

276. 40 + Jewish & Palestinian organisations defy EU secrecy Tuesday December 27th 2005

     Dismayed by the refusal of the EU to publish their own Ramallah and East Jerusalem Heads of Mission findings regarding Israeli state actions towards non Jewish residents of East Jerusalem, over 40 Jewish, Israeli and Palestinian anti Occupation groups have decided they must take matters into their own hands.

     The report, which states that "Israel's activities in Jerusalem are in violation of both its Roadmap obligations and international law" was shelved by EU foreign ministers at their 12 December Foreign Affairs (GAERC) meeting in Brussels, for fear of alienating Israel and reducing the EU's influence.

     Yet, protesting groups point out, only one day after the report's suppression, Israel announced the building of 300 new homes in the Maale Adumim settlement, the largest in the occupied territories, in violation of the Road Map and international law.

     http://bellaciao.org/en/

     Posted by plunger at 12/28/2005 @ 6:56pm

277. I've got it! "Bushius Maximus Corruptus"!

     Posted by DownWithW at 12/28/2005 @ 6:57pm

278. Jorchy -- on the UN spying story, and the role played by the heroic Katherine Gun, take a look at "Iraq war 'spy memo case' collapses" [cnn.com], and "Follow my lead, says whistleblower" [guardian.co.uk]

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 7:02pm

279. THE WEEKLY INFORMANT http://www.theweeklyinformant.com/arishavit.htm April 12, 2003

     When Congressman James Moran (D-VA) told an audience that the leaders of American Jewish groups were pushing America into a war with Iraq, he was denounced as an "anti-Semite" and pressured to resign.

     When Syndicated columnist and former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan accused Jewish neo-conservatives and the US-Israeli lobby of pushing America into a war against Israel's enemies, he was also widely denounced as an "anti-Semite."

     But what are we to make of the many outspoken Jewish writers, Jewish intellectuals and Jewish activists who have been warning us about the exact same thing? Should we dismiss these jews as "anti-Semites" or "self-hating Jews"?

     Following are some very revealing quotes from just a few of these Jewish writers and journalists. __

     Joe Klein, Time Magazine, Time.com, February 5, 2003

     "A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community.

     The fantasy involves a domino theory. The destruction of Saddam's Iraq will not only remove an enemy of long-standing but will also change the basic power equation in the region. It will send a message to Syria and Iran about the perils of support for Islamic terrorists. It will send a message to the Palestinians too: Democratize and make peace on Israeli terms, or forget about a state of your own." __

     Michael Kinsley, Slate Magazine, October 24, 2002

     Tariq Aziz has a theory. Saddam Hussein's deputy told the New York Times this week, "The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel." Although no one wishes to agree with Tariq Aziz, he has put succinctly what many people in Washington apparently believe.

     The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of "President Bush" is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the classic anti-Semitic image of the king's Jewish advisers whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country to foreign interests. __

     Ari Shavit, April 5, 2003 Haaretz News Service (Israel)

     "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.

     In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town(Washington): the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith wasdisseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost allof them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history." __

     James Rosen, April 6, 2003 The Sacramento Bee (California)

     "In 1996, as Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to take office, eight Jewish neoconservative leaders sent him a six-page memo outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list was overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a monarch under the control of Jordan.

     The neoconservatives sketched out a kind of domino theory in which the governments of Syria and other Arab countries might later fall or be replaced in the wake of Saddam's ouster. They urged Netanyahu to spurn the Oslo peace accords and to stop making concessions to the Palestinians.

     Lead writer of the memo was Perle. Other signatories were Feith, now undersecretary of defense, and Wurmser, a senior adviser to John Bolton, undersecretary of state.

     Fred Donner, a professor of Near Eastern history at the University of Chicago, said he was struck by the similarities between the ideas in the memo and ideas now at the forefront of Bush's foreign policy." __

     Thomas Friedman, April 4 2003 New York Time Columnist

     I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

     It is not only the neo-conservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris."

     Dr. Henry Makow, Ph.D, February 10, 2003

     If the U.S. gets bogged down with heavy casualties on both sides, Americans are going to blame big oil and Zionism for getting them into this mess.

     Everybody knows that:

     # The only country that fears Iraq's WMD's is Israel; # American-Jewish neo-conservatives on the Defense Policy Board (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) planned this war in 1998 and made it Bush Administration policy; # The purpose of the war is to change the balance of power in the Middle East so Israel can settle the Palestinian issue on its own terms; and # Congress trembles in fear before the Israeli Lobby, "AIPAC."

     At this perilous juncture in US history, there is no effective opposition because Zionist Jews appear to control both parties. The Jewish "Anti Defamation League" considers it a barometer of anti-Semitism to say, "Jews have too much power." But is something anti-Semitic if it is true? Anti Semitism is racial prejudice. Zionist power is not a racial prejudice; it is a fact of life. When a special interest group hijacks American foreign policy, it is a patriotic duty to say so.

     In recent decades, Zionists have succeeded in making support for Zionism synonymous with "Jewish." They have made Israel appear to be a vulnerable country facing annihilation in a sea of bloodthirsty Arabs. In fact, Israel has 200-400 nuclear bombs and is one of the most powerful nations on earth. It has evaded many opportunities for a just peace because it's secret agenda is to dominate the region. Israel keeps this quiet because most Jews, including Israelis, did not sign on for that. __

     Israel Shamir, Israeli writer

     "The old adage has it that, when visiting a foreign country, to ascertain who really runs things, one need determine only who is spoken about in whispers, if at all." Judged by this measure, the Jews rule supreme. Indeed, when I referred to 'Jewish media lords' during a UNESCO conference in the summer of 2001, the audience's hearts missed a beat. The yet-unfought War on Iraq changed this. The American Ultimatum date was set on 17 March, the Jewish feast of Purim. Purim, 1991 saw destruction of Iraqi armies and death of 200,000 Iraqis. Too many coincidences for a purely American war." "The powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States, which advances Israeli interests by pushing for U.S. aid and protection to Israel, and, currently, by pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests. This lobby has not only helped control media debate and made congress into `Israeli occupied territory', it has seen to it that numerous officials with 'dual loyalties' occupy strategic decision-making positions in the Bush administration" __

     Jack Bernstein, Author, The Life of An American Jew in Racist Israel (following prediction was made in 1984!)

     "The Zionists who rule Israel and the Zionists in America have been trying to trick the U.S. into a Mideast war on the side of Israel. They almost succeeded when U.S. Marines were sent to Lebanon in 1982. The blood of the 250 American Marines who died in Lebanon is dripping from the hands of the Israeli and American Zionists. If more Americans are not made aware of the truth about Zionist Israel, you can be sure that, sooner or later, those atheists who claim to be God's Chosen People will trick the U.S. into a Mideast war against the Arabs who in the past have always been America's best friends. ---- ...

     Posted by plunger at 12/28/2005 @ 7:15pm

280. Downey:

     "I've got it! "Bushius Maximus Corruptus"!

     Posted by DOWNWITHW 12/28/2005 @ 6:57pm

     Sounds like a new species of insect. Eats its own!

     Posted by doumer at 12/28/2005 @ 7:20pm

281. HMAN23 said basically what I would say, too, LL. If the Dems take even one of the Houses, there will be subpoenas, and there will be hell to pay, mark my words.

     ▪ The Downing Street Memo

     ▪ the missing redacted pages 28 pages of the "Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001" [fas.org], the evidence behind the Teguba report, and much more that proves that Gen. Miller was entirely behind the, yes, systemic policy of torture

     ▪ the divvying up of Iraq even before 9-11 in the Cheney Energy meetings

     ▪ the violation of the terms of the War Powers resolution [yourcongress.com], the terms that required Bush to exhaust all peaceful means before the grant of war powers was legally his:

     In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and"

     and on and on and on. The crimes of the century — the overthrow of California by Texas via the criminal plundering of Enron — the list is endless before you even get to the well-founded evidence that 9-11 was staged. The US populace may never get a strong enough stomach to face that fact.

     But even without it, the fuse is lit. But first, we have to have subpoena power, = at least one House in our control.

     Impeachment can wait.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 7:40pm

282. Carter's stagflation -- Reagan seemed to solve it, by borrowing the equivalent of the debt of all the presidents previous combined.

     As Lloyd Bentsen quipped at the 1988 VP debates,

     You know, if you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you an illusion of prosperity, too. (Laughter and applause) This is an administration that has more than doubled the national debt, and they've done that in less than eight years. They have taken this country from the No. 1 lender nation in the world to the No. 1 debtor nation in the world. And the interest on that debt next year, on this Reagan-Bush debt of our nation, is going to be $640 for every man, woman, and child in America because of this kind of a credit-card mentality.

     The interest on our current debt [uwsa.com] for 2004 was $321 billion. How many times over could we have saved New Orleans with that (if it had been in the interest of rich white people to do so), if, say, we'd repaired the levee like the Corps of Engr's requested funding to do?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 7:58pm

283. Posted by PROUDPRIMATE 12/28/2005 @ 7:58pm

     The important thing to note is that monthly interest payment is the amount owed by each individual man woman and child in America.

     The whack job evangelics are worried about a kid being born with original sin. In 2005 that translates into a $1,032.24 a month interest payment starting day one.

     At that rate how's junior ever going to go to college?

     Posted by Will C. at 12/28/2005 @ 8:12pm

284. to be fair and balanced our right wing coterie insists on reminding us of the crimes of the Clintons.

     let's see, there was travelgate, that's where Hillary kidnapped the travel agents, had them rendered to another countrys dungeons to be tortured, then disappeared them to Guantanamo, where they were denied any process, due or otherwise. now those were crimes

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2005 @ 8:13pm

285. Y'know, I'm no fan of Lloyd Bentsen, but that was one of his finest moments. He exposed the essential phoniness of the Reaganites for a split second. On the other hand, he was debating Dan Quayle, and anybody who couldn't show that loser up didn't deserve to be vice president.

     Posted by Legba at 12/28/2005 @ 8:14pm

286. I find it rather telling that "conservatives" talk about "Carter's stagflation" yet disavow Bush's involvment in the success or failure of the economy.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 8:29pm

287. Frankg,

     good to have you back. Any word from your son?

     Posted by love liberty at 12/28/2005 @ 8:56pm

288. Plunger —

     Here is a quote from the Foreword (which they spell "Forward" — one of many quaint typos in the piece) of a pamphlet included in the page called "The Brutal Zionist Role in the Holocaust". Reader: please note that these are the most orthodox of Jews writing these things, and speaking from experience.

     Due to the piss-poor blog engine we have to use here, I cannot link the URL, but you can get there by combining these two phrases: "http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com" and "/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm" without spaces.

     The piece is called Holocaust Victims Accuse, which is one of the links there in the box titled "Holocaust Stories".

     At a national conference of Tzirel Agudes Yisroel, which took place during the establishment of Ihe "State of Israel," the delegates came to one decision which aroused a furor even amongst factions of Agudas Yisroel, and "Hamodia" refused to publish it. As a matter of principle, the controversial resolution stated: "We declare that, at this time of the establishment of the state, our beliefs of the past remain the same: Zionism constitutes a danger, spiritual and physical, to the existence of our people".

     Last year, a new printing of the book, "Yaldei Teheran Maashimim" ("The Teheran Children Accuse"), appeared. It was meant especially for B'nei Torah, and was distributed in yeshivos and kollelim. That frightening manuscript enumerates what the Zionist movement can do to the spirit of our people. The booklet which we are publishing here, "Serufay Ha Kivshonim Maashimim" ("The Holocaust Victims Accuse"), serves as an attempt to show, by means of testimonies, documents and reports, how Zionism and its high-level organizations brought a catastrophe upon our people during the era of the Nazi holocaust. If the Yaldei Teheran affair serves as an example of the implications of, "greater is the (sins of) one who causes another to sin than the (sins of) one who kills another", analogous to destroying the soul and leaving the body, then what the heads of the Zionist movement did to the European Jews during World War II cannot be defined except as the one who actually does the killing. "Serulay Ha Kivshonim Maashimim" is a collection of nine essays which were printed in "Digleinu" in the years 1961–64 under the heading, "Ani Maashim – – Min HaMaitzar" ("I Accuse - - From the Depths"). The fruit of the pen of Reb Moshe Shonfeld, it constitutes a continuation of the revelations of the gaon and tsaddik, Rabbi Michael Ben Weissmandel, who devoted his life to saving his brothers, and endlessly alerted the Jewish world. But there was no one listening to him. Several paragraphs incorporated into the first nine essays and the last essay in its entirety are being published here for the first time.

     The reading material in the pamphlet before us is very bitter, but it is essential that we look into it and absorb it in order to know the secular enemy [emphasis mine – PP.] and to understand his character and nature.

     The essays printed in the booklet include just a small part of a serious accusation, which exposes the leaders of Zionism as war criminals, who contributed their share to the destruction of six million of our people. In the archives of the Goodman Family in London, Eisz of Zurich, Sternbuch of Montreux and Griffel and Weissmandel in the United States, are hidden documents and reports which are hair-raising and are waiting to be brought to light. Therefore, one must end the pamphlet with, "finished, but not ended", in the hope that these matters will be completed. This is our obligation to millions of victims, as well as to clarify our consciousness and our world outlook. The Kotzker Rebbe said, "who increases knowledge, increases pain; even though he will add pain, a person must increase his knowledge."

     The Zionist approach, that Jewish blood is the anointing oil needed for the wheels of the Zionist state, is not a thing of the past. It remains operable to this very day.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 9:20pm

289. "He exposed the essential phoniness of the Reaganites for a split second."

     Yeah.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 9:21pm

290. Uh, Plunger, about your username —

     Are you sayin' there's a problem with the plumbing in DC?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 9:27pm

291. PROUDPRIMATE:

     I guess I am not the only person who noticed the parallels between the neo-con movement and Zionism.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 9:35pm

292. Jorchy, yer gonna have to do better'n that. Zionism is over 100 years old, a secular movement in part, progressives and reactionaries. just like in america, the reactionaries in Israel have had the upper hand, and their policies should be condemned, but to paint each and every Zionist a neo-con, or every jew a Zionist is just false. I realize the relationship with the US and Israel is a bit too cozy, but we are also cozy with Egypt , Saudi, andPakistan, and there really is no comparison which is the democratic progressive society.and, for the last time: there is no grand jewish conspiracy, please, we do not live in Zarist times, and Dreyfus is not on trial anymore

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/28/2005 @ 9:43pm

293. But how strong is the witness of the most stringent rabbonim from the very inception! More after my shower --

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 9:44pm

294. JOHANNESROLF:

     You misunderstand my point, and that is perhaps my fault for not explaining myself fully. I am not talking about a "Grand Jewish Conspiracy" any more than there is a "Grand American Conspiracy". Quite to the contrary. The worst excesses of either are the direct work of a small coterie of cabalists who seek to leverage the power and capabilities of a statem regardless of which state that is, in order to achieve such an agenda in contravention to the interests of the population at large.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 9:52pm

295. From AfterDowningStreet.

     Now Bush says he was only spying on people with "a history of blowing up trains, weddings and churches" Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2005-12-28 09:39. By John in DC,

     From Reuters: In Crawford, Texas, where Bush is spending the holidays, his spokesman, Trent Duffy, defended what he called a "limited program."

     "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner," he told reporters. "These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings, and churches."

     Wow, very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches, yet Bush never sought a court order to conduct the snooping because he thought a court wouldn't let him?! Huh? Let me repeat, the people they spied on "have a history of blowing up trains, weddings and churches." If that's true, then any court in the land would haven given Bush a search warrant.

     But there's a larger question. If Bush is now telling the truth about who these people are, then pray tell, what the hell was Bush doing letting hundreds if not thousands of people "who have a history of blowing up trains, wedding and churches" run around free inside the US for the past 4 years?

     Or maybe this is just another lie.

     Posted by Munich at 12/28/2005 @ 10:22pm

296. I recently received an email from a relative of mine entitled "History Test." This type of conservative hate-mongering crap makes me sick. After talking to a few friends about it I came to realize that most of the people I knew who had slightly conservative friends, family or co-workers have grown accustomed to receiving mail like this. Well, I am so angry I could shit Mexicans. This email was in protest to profiling laws that prevent our security forces from being able to target specific races in their quest to protect us from anyone different (anyone remember what happened to Japanese Americans during World War II?). This "test" gave 12 examples of terrorist activity that was perpetrated by "Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40". Yep, ANYTHING in extreme can be bad, and Muslims have definitely done some pretty nasty things. But what if I made a list of heinous acts through modern history performed by right-wing conservative Christians? What if I told you that it would make me feel safer if it were encouraged for security guards to pull someone aside in an airport line because they are wearing a shirt that says, "God is Awesome!"? What if I gave you proof that sometimes Christian extremists do terrible things?

     I realize I have left many important events out of this quiz, including President Bush's new Crusade against…wait, who all are we fighting again? This test is meant to illustrate how our enemy can so often look just like us, only holier. Profile these assholes:

     1. In June of 1964 three civil rights workers in Mississippi were gunned down and buried in a ditch that had been dug out earlier, specifically to rest their rotting corpses, by a group of a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 b. Christian male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 (the man most recently tried in this case, Edgar Killen, was 38 and an ordained Baptist minister at the time that he conspired to murder the men)

     2. From 1976 to 1983 as many as 30,000 were killed and tortured in Argentina; many of those who disappeared were disemboweled and thrown from airplanes into the ocean; others were killed and buried in mass graves. These atrocities were committed by a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 b. Christian male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 (during the "Dirty War". Look it up)

     3. Tony Alamo was charged with felony child abuse for his involvement in the beating in 1988 of an 11-year-old boy that was so severe it left him unable to sit for almost three weeks. Alamo was a leader of a religious sect in California, and a a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 b. Christian extremist between the ages of 17 and 50 (spank them into submission, that always works. Especially for the Christian father that in January of this year beat his son to death trying to "box" with him because he was afraid his son was going to turn out gay)

     4. Paul Hill was the first person executed in the US for anti-abortion violence, after he was convicted of the 1994 slayings of Dr. John Britton and his bodyguard. Hill was a a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 b. Christian extremist between the ages of 17 and 50 (and was also a former Presbyterian minister--double trouble! Thank you so much for helping rid the world of those pesky doctors.)

     5. On April 19, 1995 an explosion ripped through the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. It was, up to that point, the worst terrorist attack ever undertaken on American soil. The blast killed 168 people--19 of them children--and injured hundreds. The two "masterminds" of this attack were a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 b. Christian male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 (we all remember Mr. McVeigh and Terry Nichols)

     6. In 1998 Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead by two men. He was found the next day, alive but never regaining consciousness due to his catastrophic brain damage. He had been pistol-whipped 18 times with a revolver. Since being imprisoned, his murderers have both justified their actions by claiming that they were dictated by the Bible. His murderers are shining examples of misguided a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 b. Christian extremists between the ages of 17 and 40 (in quite possibly my favorite example of Christian hate-mongering, Reverend Fred Phelps and his supporters picketed Shepard's funeral, displaying signs with slogans such as "Matt Shepard rots in Hell" and "God Hates Fags.")

     7. In January of 1998 a bomb was detonated in a Birmingham, Alabama women's clinic. The blast killed one and left over a hundred injured. The man found to be responsible for this heinous crime was also found to be responsible for a blast during the 1996 Olympics that killed a woman and injured 100, as well as an attack on a gay nightclub. The bomber, Eric Rudolph was a a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 b. Christian male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 (Rudolph wrote a statement during his trial that included frequent quotes from the Bible and condemnations of homosexuality)

     8. A group of soldiers responsible for detaining prisoners of war in Abu Ghraib used their authority to force the prisoners to simulate oral sex on each other, eat pork and drink alcohol (in violation of the Muslim faith), as well as beating at least one prisoner with a baton until he begged to be killed. The first soldier to be court marshaled for the situation showed no remorse whatsoever and was often seen smiling as he walked with his lawyer up the steps of the courthouse. This man, Cpl. Graner was a a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 b. Christian extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 (at his Pennsylvania home, his truck bears a license plate with the word Jesus and a picture of a cross. Even more ironic is the stone in the garden painted with a Bible verse from the book of Hosea "Sow for yourselves righteousness, reap the fruit of unfailing love…" (10:12))

     9. Proving there are always new ways to shake things up, pharmacists all over the country are now refusing women's prescriptions for birth control and the morning-after pill. Some of these pharmacists are so adamant about forcing their morality upon others that they hold the prescription hostage and will not transfer it to a doctor willing to fill it. The pharmacists who are imposing restrictions on these women's reproductive rights claim that their religious views do not allow them to fill such prescriptions. Who the fuck thinks they can do this? a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 b. Christian extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 (there have reportedly been cases of pharmacists who mistakenly believe that contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to dispense it to anyone, or who will only provide birth-control pills to a woman if she is married. Find a new job asshole!)

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 10:26pm

297. You know I just can't even keep doing this. Your moral exhibitionism makes me sick. So I propose that we begin to profile a new group of dangerous people--conservative, right wing, proselytizing Christians with every intention of homogenizing the globe, who don't know shit about Jesus. Amen brother.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 10:27pm

298. I too feel the need to clarify my position.

     I have held the Jewish people in a lofty place all my life, above my own in many ways. I have to say, I still do. For someone like me, for whom the "life of the mind" means so much, how could I help but notice, when 1.5% of the people get 14% of the Nobel prizes?

     As one whose early life was focused on music, theatre and science, the proponderance of great Jewish artists and scholars was overwhelming, from Leonard Bernstein, Heifetz, Stern, Rubinstein, Gershwin, Mendelssohn, Bloch, to Bikel, Mostel, Lenny Bruce, Sid Caesar, Danny Kaye, Dustin Hoffman, Lawrence Harvey, Walter Matthau, Leonard Nimoy, Eli Wallach, to Salk, Freud, Chomsky, Viktor Frankl, Alfred Adler, Stephen Jay Gould, to Erdös, Cantor, Mandelbrot, John von Neumann, to Einstein, Lise Meitner, Oppenheimer whose brother I used to see in the SUB at CU, Murray Gell-Mann, Feynmann, Ed Witten, Steven Weinberg, Carl Sagan, not forgetting Franz Kafka, Allen Ginsburg, I mean, where do you stop?

     But Zionism is something, like the Bush doctrine, that has a real face and a face for public consumption, not by any means equivalent. Many honest and well meaning people, Jews & gentiles alike, have given Zionism the benefit of the doubt. I for one wish that all the people currently in Palestine could live together in peace and share the bounty of the land equally.

     But that is not happening.

     I get a lot of insight from a program on Pacifica Radio called Flashpoints, hosted by Dennis Bernstein and Nora Barrows Friedman, who are not afraid to tell the hard truth about it, and who get death threats in the mailbox from people accusing them of being "self-hating Jews". If you don't listen to Flashpoints, are you sure you're a Liberal?

     Go there, right now, and download the program, and hear the Knight Report, with Robert Knight, news of Haiti, of Death Penalty atrocities, of Katrina, of Al Nakba, of Rabbi Michael Lerner, another so-called "self-hating Jew", who publishes Tikkun [tikkun.org] magazine online.

     Go there, and just scroll thru the long front page, and see what being a Liberal really means.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 10:37pm

299. Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

     Secret court modified wiretap requests [seattlepi.nwsource.com]

     Intervention may have led Bush to bypass panel

     Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

     A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.

     The court's repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court nearly four years ago to launch secret National Security Agency spying on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside the United States, according to James Bamford, an acknowledged authority on the supersecret NSA, which intercepts telephone calls, e-mails, faxes and Internet communications.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 10:42pm

300. PROUDPRIMATE:

     Very good post. You have quite a way with words.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 10:45pm

301. Jorchy --

     Awesome if gruesome list. I used to be very close friends in my Christian days with a guy (since passed away) who came out of Tony Alamo's group, and told me how extreme he and his wife were. But then again, I've got some horror stories of my own from those 15 years.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 10:47pm

302. PROUDPRIMATE:

     The really sad thing is, I am still very much Christian. I feel a bit like the Orthodox Jews from that website feel about Zionists. It is a neverending source of frustration for me, and others like me.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 10:51pm

303. As to Flashpoints, I mean every word of it. The style of Dennis sort of took over mine as soon as I thought of them. His fund drives, for example, are ruthless. I used to listen every night on mp3 until I got put back on days.

     I'm going to DL them right now and listen in bed.

     So glad I remembered them -- Air America is all in reruns, and I'm sitting here in silence. (slaps forehead!)

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 10:52pm

304. Here's a question some keen researcher can work on...

     How OLD is the oldest "Bush impeachment" website/petition?

     Posted by Mask at 12/28/2005 @ 10:54pm

305. Conservative, right wing, proselytizing Christians with every intention of homogenizing the globe, who don't know shit about Jesus. Amen brother.

     Posted by JORCHEIM 12/28/2005 @ 10:27pm

     I was watching an evangelic pastard on the tube last night before bed. He was giving away "Miracle Dollars". The idea was that if you kept it in your wallet and you followed Jesus, you would never be poor again.

     this is one of many times that I have seen the pastards on Evangelic paid programming suggest that god will reward the righteous with riches.

     It's a strange concept considering the Nazarene suggested just the opposite.

     Matthew 19:21

     Jesus said unto him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven; and come and follow Me."

     The anti-Christians have control of this country.

     Now what was it that happens to cities and states that turn their back on God?

     Posted by Will C. at 12/28/2005 @ 10:55pm

306. Jorchy -- if you'd like to talk on the phone, I have prepaid 24-7 all over North America. You can email me at jscarp@gwi.net if you like. This typing is so slow!

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 10:57pm

307. Will --

     Amos 8:4-7

     [4] Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail,

     [5] Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?

     [6] That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat? [ the Jerusalem Bible says "even the sweepings of the wheat"]

     [7] The LORD hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob, Surely I will never forget any of their works.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/28/2005 @ 11:01pm

308. Ok folks, my pillow is calling my na,e. Have a great night, and keep up the good fight.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/28/2005 @ 11:02pm

309. RIO BRAVO wrote:

     There is nothing factually debateable, only irrational conjecture.

     And, once again, Rio Bravo fails to provide factually debtable facets into the argument to blindly defend his flip-flopping little boy king. His public-school-teacher-hating, homophobic self would be best "debating" in front of a mirror.

     Posted by TexasDemocrat at 12/28/2005 @ 11:49pm

310. ODE ON IRAQ

     Let Sir Bush Make the Sign Of the Cross For his Iraq war that Was a double-cross! Let that big smiling Dick Inspect his oil-stick! Get Rumsfeld to go to war With his crooked arms swinging across Bloody Radioactive Grass! Make certain that Miss Condi Rice Knows a mushroom Cloud from her ass!

     Posted by Mad Plato at 12/29/2005 @ 12:09am

311. Yo, Frankgrits, I'm with you on that part of the presidential oath. I think that's how Poppa Doc Junior's gonna slide off the hook again. "to the best of his ability". Indeed. It will be W.'s version of "it depends on what your interpretation of 'is' is."

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 01:17am

312. PHILBQ: Where did you hear that about UNSC snooping? Posted by JORCHEIM 12/28/2005 @ 11:28am | ignore this person

     JORCHEIM, The snooping took place in the weeks prior to the UNSC vote on the resolution over military force against Iraq. I heard it on NPR at the time and waited for further reaction in print and on television. I didn't find anything. As I recall, the Brits knew about it and made it known to the press. Quite literally, we had bugged offices of members of UNSC to determine how the vote might proceed and who might need nudging. As it turned out, this action, like so many of the last several years, accomplished nothing but further ill-will to this country. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/28/2005 @ 11:53am | ignore this person

     Jorcheim,

     I'm still working my way through this thread, but in case you haven't found one yet, here is a link: [observer.guardian.co.uk]

     Posted by seattlescribe at 12/29/2005 @ 02:11am

313. LL, so if i understand this correctly, you are a minister of some sort who promotes murder. And you are a poor republican. Why are there so many poor people in this country who want the little bit of money that's left to go to the top with the rest of it? It can't only be about abortion and gays marrying. Can it? I hope the evildoer is impeached and imprisoned. Then Halliburton should be forced to use it's war profits to truly rebuild Iraq, instead of imprison and occupy Iraq.

     Posted by loveloki at 12/29/2005 @ 04:11am

314. ProudPrimate:

     http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm

     In the article posted above, it is stated:

     "The Zionist approach, that Jewish blood is the anointing oil needed for the wheels of the Zionist state, is not a thing of the past. It remains operable to this very day."

     This is the clearest statement pointing in the direction of the tactic that is used to achieve their ends. The tactic is False Flag Terrorism.

     Any Jew reading that statement should be fearful of Zionists.

     It is no secret that Israel sponsors frequent visits by US Senators and Congressman several times each year. Clearly, bus bombings and suicide bomb attacks of other sorts occur in Israel with frequency. It would be interesting to see a chart outlining the timing of these attacks, overlaid with the visits of US Officials to see the coincident relationship of each. A second chart showing the timing of such attacks coincident with votes on major legislation pertaining to the Israel/Palestinian conflict (whether in the United States Congress or at the United Nations) would also be interesting to review.

     "Coincidence Theory" may become a new field of study.

     Consider the following (an enlightening read):

     http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/3rd.html

     excerpts:

     "Looking at Zionism as a global network operation would determine a major shift in our perspective of current world affairs:

     The Palestinians, for instance, aren't just the victims of the Israeli occupation, they are rather the victims of 3rd category Jews who decided to transform Palestine into a Jewish national bunker. The Iraqis, are better seen as the victims of the those 3rd category Jews who decided to transform the American army into a Jewish mission force. The Muslim world should be seen as a subject to some neo-conservative 3rd category tendency to make Nathan Sharansky's Democratic ideology into the new American Bible for the 3rd world.

     It is pretty depressing indeed.

     As far as self perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

     1. those who follow Judaism.

     2. those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.

     3. those who put their Jewishness over and above all of their other traits.

     Zionism, an International Network

     We are now starting to realize that Zionism shouldn't be seen merely as a nationalist movement with a clear geographical aspiration. It isn't exactly a colonial movement with an interest in Palestine. Zionism appears to be an international movement that is fuelled by the solidarity of 3rd category subjects. To be a Zionist means just to accept that more than anything else you are primarily a Jew.

     Obviously, the first two categories specify an harmless group of people. We do tend to respect religious people, as they are generally expected to be living inspired by their beliefs and are expected to abide by some sort of a higher spiritual code. Needless to say, we have no problem with the second category as well. One cannot choose one's origin. We agree that people must be respected and treated equally regardless of their origin or their racial and ethnic belonging.

     However the third category is largely problematic. Clearly, its definition may sound inflammatory to some. And yet, bizarrely enough, it is a general formulation of Chaim Weizmann's view of the Jewish identity as expressed in his famous address at the First Jewish Congress: "There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America."[1]

     According to Weizmann, a prominent Zionist figure, Jewishness is a primary quality. You may be a Jew who dwells in England, a Jew who plays the violin or even a Jew against Zionism. But above all else you are a Jew. And this is exactly the idea conveyed by the 3rd category. It is all about viewing Jewishness as the key element in one's being. Any other quality is secondary."

     And thus we arrive back on the shores of the United States and examine the admitted Cabal of "Neocons" (code for "Zionists") who installed themselves in positions within our governmental structure to enable the successful attacks on 9/11 as the pretext for the implementation of their PNAC/Zionist plan.

     http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

     You know their names, and you know that most of them are Jewish. That some are afforded dual-citizenship in Israel is said to imply that they have dual-loyalties. Clearly this in not the case. Their loyalty is to Zionism. They just operate in the United States and hold US Citizenship (until we revoke it for their Treason).

     This is the same network that operated within the Department Of Defense under the watchful eyes of Dick Cheney (The Office Of Special Plans), to manufacture false "intelligence" with which to create the pretext for the invasion of Iraq while blocking actual intelligence from reaching the desk of the President.

     Mossad has the perfect cover to operate within America. It is legal for them to spy on us, in fact, according to Sharon, they "Control" us. The only recourse is deportation, and Zionist Chertoff has dutifully deported hundreds of Mossad agents when he found it politically necessary to. They are easily replaced. When over 200 Mossad were operating within the United States in the lead up to 9/11 (purportedly shadowing the real Arab terrorists) they operated with all of the freedoms afforded them within the United States. In the days prior to 9/11, it is said that Mossad alerted agents within the US government of a pending attack. Were these agents Zionists or loyal US Citizens? Was this purported "alert" a warning, or merely final planning and coordination?

     The results seem to speak for themselves.

     Considering that Mossad prides itself on operating in secrecy and by way of deception, it must have come as a massive shock to see the news accounts of their undercover agents celebrating and filming the attacks on 9/11. The Intersection of Big Oil, The Religious Right, The Military Industrial Complex and Zionism all caught on one precious video tape. The evidence of this crime was captured by the perpetrators themselves. Their actions, the subsequent behavior of the Zionists within our own government to cover it all up, and the subsequent "spiking" of all news accounts related to this event all serve as Evidence of their role in the greatest crime ever committed.

     http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column100.html

     Zionist Chertoff was not only tasked with quietly deporting these Mossad agents, he was additionally tasked with covering up the money trail. These facts are known to all who purportedly "serve" our interests in the halls of our government, yet when Mr. Chertoff was put forward as the nominee to head up our Department of Homeland Security, he was approved UNANIMOUSLY. Any vote against him or any question as to his loyalty would have resulted in the wrath of AIPAC – a career-ending position to be in.

     Control of the United States Government has been lost. Our destiny is presently in the hands of a foreign power (Israel) and an ideology (Zionism) as a direct result of a proven tactic (False Flag Terrorism) as proscribed by the "Roadmap for War" (PNAC).

     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 09:05am

315. af·flu·ence 1 : an abundant flow or supply 2 : a flowing to or toward a point

     ef·flu·ence 1 : something that flows out 2 : an action or process of flowing out

     plung·er D : used to free waste outlets of obstructions

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 09:23am

316. PLUNGER---I am a critic of the Israeli actions and influence, but this blog is about impeachment. You seem obsessed about Israel and Jews. I am tired of your loooong posts about Zionism, even though I agree with much of it. Keep to the subject and trim your posts, or I will have to "ignore" you.

     Posted by philbq at 12/29/2005 @ 09:29am

317. Philbq:

     Philbq:

     I appreciate your perspective.

     My obsession is saving our Republic from those who have stolen it. Bush and Cheney appear to be willful accomplices in this result. The evidence required to fulfill your desired goal (which is the topic of this thread), impeachment, will by necessity require a look into AIPAC's role and the role of the Neocon cabal within the White House, which when referred to by the name "Neocon" seems to be socially acceptable, but when referred to by their real name "Zionists" seems to invoke a near-unanimous Pavlovian response.

     I realize that discussions such as this are by their very nature, sensitive, however it is time to speak freely, as it may be our last opportunity to do so if Mr. Chertoff and his Orwellianly named "Patriot Act" are implemented in full force with the next attack upon or "Homeland." Welcome to "New Speak."

     When Martial Law is implemented, and the Internet becomes fully "Sanitized For Your Protection," remember that your preferred method of dealing with this dire issue at the present time was to "ignore."

     It is not my goal to write lengthy tomes. It is my goal to change the world for the better in any way I can. Sharing my learnings as they come to me is a small part to play considering how many are dying each day for a lie. Whether or not you choose to ignore what I write is of virtually no consequence to me.

     There is NEVER going to be a message thread about 9/11 conspiracies and how Zionism played a starring role in all that has resulted. The Mainstream media is clearly prohibited from addressing this subject.

     If not here, then where? If not now, then when?

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 09:53am

318. Phil,

     Impeachment has gained virtually no ground even though our leader started a war on false pretenses. Even though he lied when he said he was outraged at the outing of a CIA agent in a time of war. Impeachment has gained no traction despite the outragous mismangement of the war (including the deaths caused by insufficient vehicle and body armour, not to mention the $9B pilfered by Paul Bremmer). Impeachment has not been innitiated despite the Downing Street memo's. The leader was reelcted inspite of his complete incompetence to do one thing to stop 911. There is no way that bypassing FISA for the purposes of domestic spying is going to be the impeachment golden egg, even though all of these crimes and failings have done infinitely more to damage the USA than lying about a BJ.

     Plunger's right, the grip is so strong on the whole process that without an enormous revelation of unbeliveable magnitude the only realistic recourse is to wait through election cycles.

     However, although there are many unresolved issues with 911 the basic theory that Plunger has, which seems to be that the buildings were explosively rigged by Mossad. The detonation of those explosives happened after AQ hijacked planes flew into the buildings is exceedingly unlikely. If the buildings were rigged they would have been detonated sooner to maximize loss of life. They would have been detonated closer in timing to each other. They would have been detonated in order (first tower hit by a plane would have been the first one detonated). The explosives would have been in serious risk of exploding when the planes struck. They most certainly would have exploded in the ensuing inferno. After the planes struck, if the explosives did not explode with the impact of the planes they would have been easily discovered and reported given that the planes exposed a lot of the structure.

     In my opinion the 911 attacks could and should have been stopped by the Administration. They should have implemented numerous recommendations to strengthen cockpit doors. They should have met at least once with Clark. They should have read a daily briefing or two. They failed us misreably and other than Clark nobody has apologized.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 10:25am

319. Colmes:

     I don't know for a fact what brought down the Twin Towers, but I do know for a fact that no airplane brought down building 7 - on command.

     I find that part of the discussion of interest, but not essential to my broader theories of who-dun-it, and why.

     As for your contention that they would have garnered a greater body count had the charges been detonated sooner, they would NOT have had a greater (LIVE) television viewing audience - which was of course an essential component of the total plan. Had the goal been to kill as many people as possible, your theory would of course be accurate, and that would be the logical goal of Bin Laden, if in fact there was a Bin Laden. The lower body count would be the logical goal of someone who intended to allow time for the buildings to be evacuated while a global audience managed to scrabmle to their television sets in time to see the towers collapse.

     A higher body count would not have added to the horror. None of us could possibly have been more horrified. Body count was not the primary driver of these attacks - merely a necessary consequence.

     The delayed collapse fits with my theories.

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 10:48am

320. LL:

     You are being silly if you really think that portraying Dem. presidential candidates in a negative light did not help Reps.

     Take Dukakis. He was not his own worst enemy. In the spring of 1988 he had a 17 point lead in the polls, which continued until July. It was only after Bush's campaign began running negative that Dukakis was defeated (largely because he refused to fight back). The Willie Horton ad was the pinnicle and very effective (60% recognition). Dukakis was portrayed as being soft on crime - even though, at the time, Massachusetts had one of the lowest crime rates and incarcertation rates in the country. Bush would have never won without it.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 10:55am

321. Plunger,

     I don't think it's OK to leap to jump to a Zionist conspiracy given that you see film footage of plane #2 striking the building. And given that there is no doubt that Muslim males were in flight schools skipping the landing lessons.

     In other words, there were planes involved. It is certain they were hijacked. It is not certain by whom, although it's more likely Muslims than Israeli's. If you cannot show that there was nothing more than planes flying into buildings they you cannot make the leap to developing a broader conspiracy.

     I do concede your points that in event the buildings were detonated it would be beneficial to do it to a larger world TV audience. However, it has to be noted that any explosives placed higher than the sixtieth floor would have exploded in the fire and I'm no explosive expert but it does appear from the footage I saw that the buildings buckled and then collapsed rather than had the basement blown out from under them.

     I am not altogether familiar with building 7 and its collapse, but I presume it was struturally damaged when one or both of the towers collapsed and then later fell. I do recall that the close by Duetsche Bank building was structurally damaged beyond repair and was brought down in a controlled demolition a few months later.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 11:10am

322. LL: You are being silly if you really think that portraying Dem. presidential candidates in a negative light did not help Reps. Take Dukakis. He was not his own worst enemy. In the spring of 1988 he had a 17 point lead in the polls, which continued until July. It was only after Bush's campaign began running negative that Dukakis was defeated (largely because he refused to fight back). The Willie Horton ad was the pinnicle and very effective (60% recognition). Dukakis was portrayed as being soft on crime - even though, at the time, Massachusetts had one of the lowest crime rates and incarcertation rates in the country. Bush would have never won without it. Posted by HMAN23 12/29/2005 @ 10:55am

     Your are so correct. The architect of this nefarious Republican victory was Lee Atwater who, dying of brain cancer several years later, openly apologized to M. Dukakis for the Willie Horton (and many other) lies. Apparently none of this ever made a dent on the brain of his protege Karl ("the Commander-of-Slime") Rove, a real bad bastard who has no conscience anyway.

     Posted by DownWithW at 12/29/2005 @ 11:11am

323. I hope Dem leaders are still not of the mindset that ignoring Limbaugh as just another irrelevant loudmouth is the way to handle him. He gets away with way to much and now has gotten Jeb Bush to buy off the lead prosecutor in his drug case. It's way past time that Dems begin to unmercifully attack this divisive propagandist. Fight dammit! Posted by FRANKGRITS 12/29/2005 @ 10:31am

     Absolutely right! Mike Malloy is a major pace-setter for progressives in this area, and he's worth listening to. The fact is, we are at war with the Bushies for control of the government they want to destroy, and I for one do not believe in the effectiveness of "gentlemanly debate" with the bushbastards. They hit with sledgehammers every time and so should we, maybe even harder.

     Posted by DownWithW at 12/29/2005 @ 11:18am

324. Colmes:

     I agree that Muslim males (or individuals purporting to be Muslim males) were involved in flight schools in Florida, and further note that Mossad agents lived within 100 yards of some of them. A more significant coincidence would be difficult to fathom.

     Mohammad Atta even managed to visit Jack Abramoff's Sun Cruise Casino ship just days prior to 9/11. Speaking of gambling, what are the odds of that?

     Clearly two planes hit two towers.

     Explosives may not have been planted any higher in the building than the plan called for - for eactly the reasons you have noted.

     Technology exists to put the nose of each plane directly on any target chosen if so desired (Dov Zakheim's company developed this "flight termination" technology).

     If you don't know that building 7 was not damaged by the falling towers, why not? A simple Google search will tell you.

     When you do that Google search and you learn that building 7 incurred virtually no structural damage, yet managed to fall straight down mere minutes after its owner told the fire department to "pull it" - then report back to us with your theory on how they managed to demolish a building without using charges to do it.

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 11:40am

325. Colmes:

     I am not sure about the larger towers, but if you read a little about #7, there is some weird shit. You should check out the paper written by Steven Jones from BYU. Even without ackowledging every conspiracy theory, you have to admit that there is a lot to #7's collapse that does not make sense according to the official story.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 11:51am

326. There were a lot of reasons why Dukakis lost that year, and the Willie Horton ad was one of them. Closer to home, though, the "democrats" went out of their way to distance themselves from the grassroots energy the Rainbow Coalition stirred up, and Jesse, always thinking about Jesse, walked away from that new blood also. It might not have been decisive, but it certainly doesnt help to cut yourself off from a growing base. Lots of the Rainbow supporters were people who had voted for Ronald Reagan in the election of 1980. There were all kinds of opportunities for growth that the Democrats never spent adequate time exploring.

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 12:02pm

327. Plunger & Hman,

     I have just reviewwed some of the websites dedicated to queerying the collapse of WTC #7. I am completely unconvinced.

     I work in the steel industry.

     I can assure you that a 47 storey building will buckle and collapse if it is hot enough. Simply because a steel structure of this size has never before collapsed due to fire is not at all relevant.....have you ever seen a 47 storey building allowed to burn? Of course not, and you never will unless the City fire department is completely destroyed both emotionally and physically by previous events.

     From 9AM to 5:20PM the NYFD was completely unconcerned with fires in that building given that it had been evacuated. Frankly, if it caught fire at around 9AM, I'm suprised it lasted 8 hours and twenty minutes before collapsing.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 12:07pm

328. Legba - very true, but nothing has been more succesful for Reps in the last 25 years than scaring the shit out of poeple about Democratic candidates and liberalism in general.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 12:07pm

329. Colmes:

     Not that I am an expert, but many experts cannot point to a single other example of a steel-reinforced structure like the WTC collapsing from fire. Do you have any you can think of? Consider to that for #7, and damage was not a direct hit, but from debre from 1 and 2. That was hot enough to melt the steel supports of #7 enough to cause a total collapse? Given the temperatures Jones talks about, it seems doubtful such an event happened with #7.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 12:12pm

330. "debris" - apologies for sloppy spelling (blushing in shame).

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 12:14pm

331. There have been no other buildings like that collapsing from fire......no other building is permitted to burn for 8 hours!

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 12:16pm

332. OK....lets say it was rigged....why wait 8 hours to detonate? The "reason" postulated that the Twin Towers were detonated at the time they were was to maximize world TV audience.....the audience had dramatically dropped by 5:20PM.

     Why would the conspirators have only rigged three buildings? Why not WTC #3, #4, why not the nearby DB builing? Even if the Twin Towers were rigged and there was a conspiracy do you think there is any need or point for those conspirators to leave their dynamite evidence in an adjacent building for 8 hours?

     By the way, the steel was removed quickly, because it was in the way. I can give you some if you want to test it for explosives.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 12:24pm

333. My contention that the plot was nothing more than AQ whacko's unaided and unabetted by MOSSAD in no way detracts from the utterly criminal inaction of GWB from January 2001 - September 2001, when he did absolutely NOTHING to protect the citizens he had sworn to defend. That is a crime that has not even garnered an apology.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 12:30pm

334. By the way, the steel was removed quickly, because it was in the way. I can give you some if you want to test it for explosives.

     Posted by COLMES 12/29/2005 @ 12:24am | ignore this person

     You can provide what?

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 12:30pm

335. I have some small pieces of the structural steel from the Twin Towers. I told you, I work in the steel industry.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 12:32pm

336. "OK....lets say it was rigged....why wait 8 hours to detonate? The "reason" postulated that the Twin Towers were detonated at the time they were was to maximize world TV audience.....the audience had dramatically dropped by 5:20PM."

     Posted by COLMES 12/29/2005 @ 12:24am | ignore this person

     Of course your question includes within it, the answer.

     If they had hoped that the falling towers would take out building 7 - but found that not to be the case...what to do?

     ________________________________________________________________________ _ "There have been no other buildings like that collapsing from fire......no other building is permitted to burn for 8 hours!"

     Posted by COLMES 12/29/2005 @ 12:16am | ignore this person

     Again - it would be an excellent idea for you to conduct a Google search prior to making such assertions.

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 12:37pm

337. I have some small pieces of the structural steel from the Twin Towers. I told you, I work in the steel industry.

     Posted by COLMES 12/29/2005 @ 12:32am | ignore this person

     Let us know what time the Feds come to knock on your door.

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 12:38pm

338. Plunger,

     I'm not going to convince you that there was no vast conspiracy, I know that. I am open and willing to be convinced that there was, but buildings burning for 8 hours then buckling and collapsing are not doing it for me.

     I'll let you know when the Feds come....but shouldn't I be more worried about Mossad?

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 12:46pm

339. Hopefully this doesn't come across as cheeky, but while this is fascinating, it is a little off topic, no?

     While I realize that there is an indirect connection between 9/11 and the topic at hand, for myself, I'd like to hear more about how to take on the right right now, and how to get rid of the 'goon platoon' that befouls our nation in every way imaginable.

     Posted by skeletonman at 12/29/2005 @ 12:51pm

340. Skeletonman:

     You an I share the exact same goal. I have come to the conclusion that ONLY ONE THING can cause the people to take to the streets to demand impeachment, regardless of political affiliation, race or religion. That one thing is the revelation (with facts and witnesses to back it up), that 9/11 was an inside job.

     It is not one of the stories...it is the ONLY story that will lead to impeachment.

     Period.

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 1:12pm

341. Colmes:

     Check this out. A 32 story steel and concrete building in Madrid burned for over 24 hours. The fire completely gutted the building, yet no collapse.

     http://tinyurl.com/dk9up

     Posted by doumer at 12/29/2005 @ 1:13pm

342. Colmes:

     watch the video of WTC 7 collapsing. Note, two small fires on the lower floors only.

     http://tinyurl.com/6zw8t

     Posted by doumer at 12/29/2005 @ 1:18pm

343. I have not followed the WTC7 story closely at all. So, let me see if I understand: #1 and #2 did not collapse due to fire nor to the impact of the jet, but rather through detonation devices; and #7, which was not impacted nor suffering terribly from fire, also collapsed through detonation devices. Is this right?

     Similarly, the Pentagon and whatever building the fourth flight was heading toward? Or no, since there was no fourth building that had detonations go off without a plane hitting first?

     And the conspiracy is...what? That the plot to down WTC buildings involved explosives as well as jets? What does this mean other than that the plot was even more elaborate than advertised? And why wasn't the Pentagon damaged more heavily? And why didn't the targetted building of the fourth jet suffer explosions?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 1:30pm

344. And how, again, is this tied to impeaching Bush?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 1:31pm

345. COLMES:

     Look, I am not drawing any conclusions about the answers you seek. All I know is the official story has holes. I do not know, maybe the real reason was that everyone was out of #7 (if that is true) and a decision was made to bring it down for some reason and it wasn't some larger conspiracy that means a whole hell of a lot at the end of the day. But, you have a couple of isolated fires caused by external debris bringing down a whole 47 story steel building . . . something that has never happened before. Your only explanation (that it was "allowed to burn" for 8 hours) does not convince me (or people in the know who have written about what that takes). You are telling me that there is no other example of a fire in a steel building that lasted more than 8 hours, and that this factor alone is determinative? Even though I cannot source examples, I do not think you could possibly be correct. I cannot fathom how fires of that size could have been possibly hot enough to bring down the entire support structure.

     If you tested the steel for explosives, from what I have read, you would be the first to do so.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 1:35pm

346. Doumer,

     Thanks for pointing this out to me. Unfortunately (since I do want to be converted) it does not help. The building in Madrid was not allowed to burn....firefighters fought it and presumably kept dousing it in water, thereby making it cooler. Had no water been thrown on the building while it burned I suspect it would have collapsed.

     At the time of collapse of WTC 7 it is not relevant what fires can be seen. It is only relevant how hot the beams were and had been and whether they had buckled under that heat. Most probably the building would collapse at about the time of buckling but if conditions were right it might stay in place for a while thereafter.

     Moreover, buildings like this are all steel structured and hence CAN buckle under extreme heat. That is not to say all buildings will as they have various designs.....some stronger than others, some with more fire proofing on the beams etc.etc.

     I want to be convinced since I despise Bush et al. And yet in good concience I cannot yet submit to this theory as it seems too flimsy. Given my predisposition of Bush hatred and the fact that I remain unconvinced how are we going to sell this to middle America?

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 1:37pm

347. Given my predisposition of Bush hatred and the fact that I remain unconvinced how are we going to sell this to middle America?

     Posted by COLMES 12/29/2005 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person

     the Dancing Israelis.

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 1:49pm

348. Hman,

     I agree that there are a lot of unanswered questions around 911. I don't think WTC 7 is one of them.

     My personal opinion is that the deeper you go the more incompetent you find the Administration to be....like the NORAD decision.

     The limitations placed on the 911 commission were in order to conceal incompetence rather than to conceal the plot....in my opinion.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 1:51pm

349. In response to Munich's post last night which said:

     From Reuters: In Crawford, Texas, where Bush is spending the holidays, his spokesman, Trent Duffy, defended what he called a "limited program."

     "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner," he told reporters. "These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings, and churches."

     I give you the following, written by a friend. I thought it was kinda funny.

     Oh, come on. You can't tell me that those terrorists don't have to drive their kids to little league practice. What, they have chauffeurs?! And you better believe they are always planning potlucks. The Middle East is all about the potluck. So what does the NSA do? When it's apparent that the discussion is about a potluck, they quickly take the headset off? Maybe step outside the black van and stretch for a minute or two, maybe have a smoke, then go back in and put the set back on to see if they're talking about terrorism again?

     You realize, of course, that Bush has just compromised our homeland security, by tipping off the ubiquitous terrorists to the appropriate code they should use. "Hasan, is your ‘wife' making that ‘delicious' ‘green bean casserole' for the ‘potluck' on Tuesday at 10am at ‘Marge's house'?" "Yes, Akbar, although she is having trouble obtaining a high enough grade of ‘green beans' to make the dispersal of the ‘casserole' effective." "I understand. Perhaps Hakim can infiltrate the ‘supermarket' this evening after midnight and procure the necessary ‘ingredients,' Allah willing." Meanwhile, back in the van. "Ah, I don't know, Bob. These damn A-rabs. All they ever talk about is cooking. I tell ya, it's makin' me hungry. What say we stop listening for a while and go check in on that ‘peace rally' at that Pizza place on Market St."

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/29/2005 @ 1:57pm

350. Colmes, I agree with your point on incompetence. I do not subscribe to many of the 9/11 alternative theories, but I do think there was something hinky going on with #7, and many other unanswered questions. For one, I think it is not out of the question to think that the Israelis had advanced knowledge (not that they were complicit). They had been pushing for us to get involved militarily in the Middle East for years, so look what they had to gain by allowing an Arab/US conflict to escalate. Now they are trying to scare the shit out of us with claims that Iraq will have a nuke in 2 years.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 1:59pm

351. I meant Iran - sorry.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/29/2005 @ 2:00pm

352. What is the relationship of the Blackstone Group to building 7 and to Enron?

     http://elitewatch.911review.org/Blackstone_Group.html

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 2:07pm

353. Plunger,

     Were you in the area on 9-11? It was complete mayhem, people were very scared. I talked to one guy and he said "I hope the Nukes are on the way". I said "On the way where?" "I don't care where". He was serious and wasn't alone.

     The point is, did those five men admit to dancing? I think they claim that they were watching and filming. Anybody doing those things that day was going to get reported (if you could get through to the police). It is very conceivable that people thought they were arab and exagerated the dancing parts.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 2:10pm

354. Colmes:

     It is clear you either

     A: Know that this incident was well documented in the international media and are merley an apologist or

     B: You are completely not interested in reading or learning.

     The evidence of them celebrating is both from eyewitness accounts (and subsequent police and FBI reports) and within the video tape itself...not to mention their own public statements upon their return to Israel (after having failed 7 lie tedector tests).

     I have provided countless links for you to view, but clearly learning is not your goal.

     Your statements speak for themselves given the facts.

     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

     http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column100.html

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 2:17pm

355. Colmes:

     With background into the properties of steel, this article may interest you.

     http://tinyurl.com/9tdvn

     Posted by doumer at 12/29/2005 @ 2:20pm

356. Plunger,

     I am sensing a level of frustration from you that I am unwilling to lap up every possible avenue of curiosity and tie it in with a massive conspiracy.

     If the theory has merit I am willing to listen (since I hate Bush) although I cannot read conspiracy oriented websites without pinching an awful lot of salt. The rest of the country will be much harder than me to convince.

     Blackstone as far as I can determine was an owner or partner with Silverstein of WTC 7. Enron's connection seems to be that SEC files about ENRON were being kept in WTC 7. Is that what I'm supposed to find? What am I missing? What has this got to do with Mossad? Was Enron a co-conspirator with Mossad?! Are you just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?

     The mystery (if there is one) and the extent of the collusive activity (if there is any) will be found in the financial markets and the fact that the investigations into who made a "killing" were half assed is VERY strange.

     You don't have to convince me that planted explosives were what brought down a building. All I need to know was that it was an event known prior to its occurance to the Administration and or the upper echelons of corporate power.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 2:41pm

357. Fair enough:

     Do some research into Operation Greenquest, headed by Chertoff, and you will learn that the man responsible for tracking down the financing of and profits derived from 9/11, was in actuality put in charge of burying all the evidence related thereto.

     This still leaves unresolved your conclusion with respect to the smokingest gun of all...the Dancing Israelis.

     Choose to believe whatever you wish, but the fact that over 20 mainstream media accounts of this story have been stripped from web sites is evidence of a coverup in and of itself.

     The FOX Carl Cameron series should have won Emmy Awards. Clearly it was factual, or Fox would have broadcast a public apology, and/or Cameron would have been fired.

     This (combined with the fact that it was Chertoff himself who deported these admitted Mossad Agents - who had acted guilty as sin) in my book represents EVIDENCE of a COVERUP.

     If the official story of 9/11 is impossible, then some other conspiracy theory must apply.

     Google: Cheney NORAD and see what you learn.

     I have no answers, only questions.

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 2:50pm

358. LL, so if i understand this correctly, you are a minister of some sort who promotes murder. And you are a poor republican. Why are there so many poor people in this country who want the little bit of money that's left to go to the top with the rest of it? It can't only be about abortion and gays marrying. Can it? I hope the evildoer is impeached and imprisoned. Then Halliburton should be forced to use it's war profits to truly rebuild Iraq, instead of imprison and occupy Iraq.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 12/29/2005 @ 04:11am

     Loveloki,

     Where have I ever promoted murder? Murder is a sin and illegal. Neither am I aware of any poor people who want "what little money they have left to go to the top". I am against the power of taxation which Chief Justice Marshall accurately labeled as the power to destroy. I have spent more than 35 years battling against the addiction of Congress to tax the American people to death.

     Your last comments about the "evildoer" reveals the malignancy of your heart and brain.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/29/2005 @ 2:53pm

359. Plunger/Rese:

     You silly boy, you only have it half right. Don't you realize that we conservative, evangelical Christians teamed up with the Israelis to commit the events of 9/11? Sure we did it to bring about Armegeddon.

     So sue us and be done with it. You are a great representation of the best of clinical insanity the fringe has to offer. I read all your stuff because I never censor anyone and I am always looking for the ways your trip yourself up.

     Just like the other day when you cited the former US bases that are now at least in part set up with prison camps for those we Zionist and Fundamentalists plan to imprison. I can at least speak to the California ones you cited.

     Norton AFB is now a commercial center and in fact one of the largest grocery chains (Stater Bros) is relocating into the base. Many other companies are already there.

     Fort Ord was turned over to the local community for development.

     In point of fact, all throughout the nation, military bases have bee turned over to local community development, not reorganized as gulag centers.

     That is just one little correction of your twisted little conspiracy world. What you really are is an anti-semite. I have seen your materials from Lyndon Larouche you have posted.

     You make nothing more than amusing distractions from reality.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/29/2005 @ 3:03pm

360. LL:

     I made no such posting about prison camps - however...

     "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified."

     How many ways are there to interpret that statement?

     http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html#_Toc11659708

     In the first of a four-part investigative documentary TV series on the Israeli connection to 9/11, FOX News correspondent Carl Cameron reported on how U.S. authorities had detained active members of an Israeli spy ring operating in the U.S., believed by authorities to be linked to the 9/11 attacks:

     "A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States [emphasis added]… investigators suspect that they [sic] Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are – quote – ‘tie-ins'. But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, – quote – ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.' Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism."[38]

     The Weekly Planet reports that "addresses of many" of the "Arabs under scrutiny by the U.S. government" systematically "correspond to the specific areas where the Israelis set up operations." One extremely pertinent example is "an address for the Sept. 11 hijacking leader, Mohammad Atta," which is "3389 Sheridan St. in Hollywood, Fla., only a few blocks and a few hundred feet from the address of some of the Israelis, at 4220 Sheridan." The strange coordination between Atta and Israeli intelligence operatives is not an isolated case. About a "dozen Israelis, including the alleged surveillance leader, had been based in Hollywood, Fla., between January and June [2001] – quite possibly watching Arabs living nearby who are suspected of providing logistical support to Osama bin Laden's network." Indeed, ten of the 19 Al-Qaeda hijackers lived in Florida, bolstering conclusions reported by a FOX News reporter that "the students-cum-spies might have gained advance knowledge of aspects of the Sept. 11 terrorists" – or even worse, may have been directly involved in some way.[39] The respected French journal Le Monde further reports that there were "more than one-hundred Israeli agents, some presenting themselves as fine arts students, others tied to Israeli high-tech companies. All were challenged by the authorities, were questioned, and a dozen of them are still imprisoned. One of their tasks was to track the Al-Qaida terrorists on American territory – without informing the federal authorities."[40]

     The detained Israelis, in other words, had been part of an intelligence operation that had very possibly been tracking the hijackers, and had both the means and the opportunity to discover the terrorist plot. Indeed, somewhat ominously, the U.S. government has refused to disclose already existing "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11," ensuring instead that it remains "classified" (unlike direct evidence of an Al-Qaeda involvement). Most crucially, if U.S. authorities recognise the existence of an Israeli connection to 9/11, including the distinct possibility of foreknowledge (not to mention as yet undisclosed "tie-ins"), why are Shalom and Albert arbitrarily dismissing the same? There is no need to comment on this further – it is clear that the facts speak for themselves in warranting a further inquiry into an Israeli linkage to the September 11 attacks. Such an inquiry is clearly legitimate based on the facts. We do not need to delve into specific "conspiracy theories", or a discussion of them, to understand the legitimacy – and necessity – of such an inquiry, which obviously has broad implications for the nature of the relationship between the United States and Israel, as well as the current direction of Israeli intelligence policy.

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 3:10pm

361. Doumer,

     I read the article.

     Two questions....why is he constantly using the term "molten metal" in the basement instead of molten steel? Molten steel would be very curious....molten metal would have been aluminum/zinc/copper melting from the cars parked in the basement....which would have happened and is not curious.

     Why is he so convinced that the yellow hot piece of "metal" withdrawn by grapple in late September was steel? It looks more like aluminum to me, which I presume could be that hot and could retain that much heat with enough rubble insulating it.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 3:14pm

362. If you seek the truth, is relatively easy to find. If you seek to disinform, you're doing a great job...

     Molten Steel:

     http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

     Molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2]," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

     http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

     September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero

     In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report there being molten metal in the remains of the WTC at Ground Zero. Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations there later describes to the 9/11 Commission, "Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminds him of a volcano.

     http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=40&i=12&t=12

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 3:29pm

363. >>> On 11 December 2002, the Senate and House Intelligence Committees released portions of their joint report on intelligence failures regarding the September 11 terrorist attacks. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, on PBS, reported on the release that day. After asking her guests a bunch of predictable questions, and receiving predictable answers, guest host Gwen Ifill asked Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a good question and got an amazing answer.

     GWEN IFILL: Senator Graham, are there elements in this report, which are classified that Americans should know about but can't?

     SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.

     I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.

     To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.

     GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

     SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.

     GWEN IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about?

     SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.

     http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-graham-admits.htm

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 3:35pm

364. So what foreign government was it?

     http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2004/saudi-relations-interes t-07-28.html

     # No Saudi Backing of 9/11 Found By Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times

     "The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is expected to reject claims that Saudi Arabia provided money and assistance to the hijackers, challenging one of the most contentious allegations raised by a joint congressional inquiry that concluded last year.."

     # Facts About Saudi Arabia in 9-11 Commission Report

     "Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin Sultan stated: 'The 9-11 Commission has confirmed what we have been saying all along. The clear statements by this independent, bipartisan commission have debunked the myths that have cast fear and doubt over Saudi Arabia..'"

     Not Iran Not Syria Not Iraq Not North Korea Not Lebanon Not Pakistan Not Turkey Not India

     Clearly a United States Senator has let us know for a fact that there is Classified Evidence proving that a sovereign foreign government played a substantial role in 9/11.

     What country was it?

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 3:45pm

365. Plunger,

     Dr Jones quotes Leslie Robertson (strucural engineer) as saying "molten steel". Most of the rest (if not all say molten letal). In a liuid form steel / zinc and aluminum are very hard to distinguish visually.

     It is exceedingly unlikey that molten steel would stay that way for very long even if a thermite reaction was used to bring the buildings down in the first place (by melting some of the structural support).

     Interesting though.

     Posted by colmes at 12/29/2005 @ 3:47pm

366. The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse [16]. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y, observed "literally molten steel" at the WTC. Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that the molten metal cannot be known to be steel without a metalurgical analysis being done. He has also noted that molten iron is a byproduct of a thermite reaction, which could have been used in the demolition of the towers[17]. Molten metal was also mentioned by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc(citation needed). The extreme temperatures in the rubble pile are unprecedented in the history of documented building fires or structural failures. The melting point of un-fireproofed steel is around 2750 °F (1510 °C) while the highest speculation regarding temperatures inside the twin towers circled 2000 °F (1093 °C). According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)," however, these temperatures could not have been reached in the towers themselves (if thermite or other exploves were not used) since air-aspirated open hydrocarbon fires typically cannot exceed 820 °C. Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9cm at 932 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle. The molten steel observation has not been elaborated on or picked up by most news groups. The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, in a second hand account by James Williams who reported, "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." Sarah Atlas, of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said, "Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins…" (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002).

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 4:16pm

367. Second, severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions was present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were suffocating," points out Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the towers, as well as police and firefighters, reported (pp. 199–200) the same thing.

     Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum

     http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 4:31pm

368. Colmes:

     Plunger quoted "Molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2]," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon."

     if I recall correctly, Loizeaux is head of Controlled Demolition, Inc.....the ranking demo expert in the art of bringing buildings down. He was contracted by FEMA and Port Authority for much of the excavation of the pile. I should think that Loizeaux knows the difference between molten steel vs molten aluminum.

     As well, the collapses (with thousands of tons of fine pulverized debris) would have created a negative atmosphere for fire and as such, would this not negate combustion of vehicles on the parking levels?

     Posted by doumer at 12/29/2005 @ 4:39pm

369. "molten steel was also found at 7 WTC"

     Diesel fuel cannot account for that, and no other (known) fuel was present.

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 5:03pm

370. I'm wondering if it really matters. Even supposing the WTC was destroyed with an explosive charge, (which again, given the structure of the building was not even a neccessity), it is a waste of time looking for the evidence of a cover-up. What is accomplished through all that effort? What difference does it make? What's the point?

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 5:48pm

371. Thermite and the WTC Collapses

     http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 5:51pm

372. I'm not trying to be an asshole here, you all know when I'm really doing that. I just think that if there's energy to expend picking through the long cold ashes of the WTC, it would be better spent seeking some restitution to the firefighters and city workers who are still suffering ailments from all the asbestos, fiber glass and bone matter they inhaled that day, monies which the city of New York under both the great Zero Giuliani and his successor Bloomberg are too tight fisted to dispense. Yesterday's heros are today's money grubbing mercenaries, according to these political shitheads. Why not put some energy into fighting for justice for those clean-up crews,etc? Why waste time poking around in the dust?

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 5:52pm

373. I'm wondering if it really matters. Even supposing the WTC was destroyed with an explosive charge, (which again, given the structure of the building was not even a neccessity), it is a waste of time looking for the evidence of a cover-up. What is accomplished through all that effort? What difference does it make? What's the point?

     Posted by LEGBA 12/29/2005 @ 5:48pm | ignore this person

     Why not ask Zogby to conduct a nationwide opinion poll and ask that exact question, and see what the difference is? Do you live in America?

     The point is that it would prove that in the weeks preceeding 9/11, Jeb and George's brother, Marvin, who oversaw security at the WTC took it upon himself to ensure that the building could be secretly rigged for remote control demolition. It would prove the greatest conspiracy in the history of planet earth. It would prove that a coup has in fact occured in the United States and that everything that has followed was part of the conspiracy.

     But heh, what's the difference, right?

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 5:58pm

374. Plunger: Here's another take on this. The feds set up the Victim Compensation Fund which ultimately shelled out $15.8 billion to families of the WTC dead. Participation in the fund was voluntary but constrained by specific time limits. The caveat attached to the settlements: waiver from future litigation. In other words, the Feds did not want lawyers and investigators looking too closely into this.

     Did the surviving familes in the OKC bombing receive compensation from the Feds? No.

     Just something to think about.

     Posted by doumer at 12/29/2005 @ 6:27pm

375. "When Martial Law is implemented, and the Internet becomes fully 'Sanitized For Your Protection,' remember that your preferred method of dealing with this dire issue at the present time was to 'ignore.'"

     Hear! Hear!

     Before the Darkness falls

     Before the Silence rumbles loud and long.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 6:41pm

376. LL, aren't you the one who said, "no i want him to do everything he can to find stop and especially kill the terrorists." So, is killing not murder? And isn't your choice for placement of the word especially interesting? so i guess you do promote murder, huh? just like i said. what he is doing with taxes is moving our nation speedily up the infant mortality list. is it ok with you that those babies are not living? is it because they are not the chosen ones like your children? do you need more starved american babies to prove that your children are chosen? with your admitted financial situation, i'd be a little worried about your kid's chosen status if i were you.

     And, you know nothing of the malignancy of my heart and brain.

     Posted by loveloki at 12/29/2005 @ 6:45pm

377. If we don't get Bush Impeached then lets just forget about ever Impeaching any President. If you ask me I say reverse everything this trainwreck of a Presidency has done. Disband the Homeland Security Agency, which is just fixing the problem with the buracratic problem itself. Buracracy caused 9/11 to happen by stiffling FBI agents who were close to finding out before the big Speilberg Towering Inferno show. They outed Mrs. Plame who was probably on to them, and probably knew then what we all know now about forged memo's to start an illegal war. America worked just fine without a gestapo "Fatherland Security Agency" before Bush. The problem with the Iraq war is that its not a war. It's a war crime, and there is an enormous difference, because might does not make right. How many more wars does America have to loose in order to get that through our heads? Superior military might will never squash the resistance of thoes who happen to be in the right, which gives streangth to their struggle. We'd be out of Iraq by now if our intentions were really to let Iraqi's have their own country back after outing So-damn Hinsane. Let's change the tax code back to what we had before Bush stole the election in 2000, and watch the deficit dissappear. When we hang Bush's Presidency out to dry from impeachment we can then bring this fucken criminal to trial and make our appologee to the rest of the world for this President who has given all of us a bad name. Then watch the world forgive us and regard us once again as a beacon of bomb-free freedom, a different kind of freedome then the one Bush tries to sell by simply repeating the word "freedom" and "democracy" as if they didn't mean anything. This is all happening because this is what right-wingers do. I've been expecting this since Reagan, and personnally renounced Christianity during Reagan because I could see this President coming, and just knew Christians would fall all over this abomination of desolations known as Bush. The only thing wrong with the world today is Bush. Terrorism has long been right-winger's political toy since they have nothing really to offer but fear and autocratic obsessions. They have been itching for a 9/11 to happen for decades, and the holes in their official story are big enough to fly four planes through. Why was that crime never investigated? Why was the evidence immediatly destroyed? These are retorical questions for which the answare is, "because right-wingers staged the whole thing for thier sick unAmerican vision of world conquest". Get this fucked up piece of shit out of the Whitehouse and give me my country back.

     Posted by dajson at 12/29/2005 @ 7:08pm

378. I don't know, maybe you're right. But the operative word here is "proof".

     Posted by Legba at 12/29/2005 @ 7:15pm

379. We can all take a lesson from Monsters Inc. Happiness has much more power than fear. We are being ruled by fear.

     Posted by loveloki at 12/29/2005 @ 7:16pm

380. DAJSON: WORD!

     LEGBA: DEMAND THE PROOF - IT'S YOUR COUNTRY!

     Posted by plunger at 12/29/2005 @ 7:21pm

381. "Plunger's right, the grip is so strong on the whole process that without an enormous revelation of unbelievable magnitude the only realistic recourse is to wait through election cycles." ( -- COLMES)

     "...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

     It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."

     ( -- Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf, Book 1, ch. 10)

     This is the NeoCon strategic sweep. This has been stated in no uncertain terms by the founder of NeoConservatism, Leo Strauss, and fostered by his students, e.g., Allen Bloom, mentor of Paul Wolfowitz. The strict doctrinaire name for this element is "The Noble Lie", which turns out to be a perversion of Plato's doctrine of the same name, from the Republic. See Plato's Noble Lie [answers.google.com]

     But, consider this well-said commentary from "There Are No Neocons in Foxholes" [atrueword.com] by Amir Butler:

     "Although Strauss lifted his idea of the 'noble lie' from Plato, this is not what Plato intended. When Plato spoke of the noble lie, he spoke of fables and stories that, although false, carried a central truth from which the reader or listener could benefit. Plato warned of the corrosive effect that the type of lies told by the neoconservatives would have on the human soul: 'false words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.'"

     Plato's motivation was genuinely benign, but the Neocons are motivated by a god-awful arrogance and cynicism that thinks permanent cessation of war would be the equivalent of universal castration.

     Everybody needs to read up on Leo Strauss, and the best source is Shadia Drury, of Calgary U. in Canada. A great source document is this interview, "Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neocons, and Iraq" at this URL:

     http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-iraqwarphiloshophy/article_1542.j sp

     (too long for rinky-dink Nation blog engine -- remove the space inserted thereby between "j" and "sp", but don't correct the spelling error 'philoshophy' ! That's OpenDemocracy's fault, and is required [heh!])

     But I recommend everybody buy the DVD Hijacking Catastrophe [hijackingcatastrophe.org], produced by Karen Kwiatkowski, a massive work of high quality in itself, but which also includes as extras great in-depth interviews with Ms. Drury, as well as Daniel Ellsberg, Scott Ritter, Stan Goff, & Kwiatkowski. ($20)

     Drury is the hands-down expert on Strauss and the Straussians (and a great beauty as well!)

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 7:28pm

382. "If the buildings were rigged they would have been detonated sooner to maximize loss of life."

     You misjudge their motive.

     "The explosives would have been in serious risk of exploding when the planes struck. They most certainly would have exploded in the ensuing inferno."

     Now that's an interesting point. I'm getting to work on that right away.

     Nice work, Colmes.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 7:32pm

383. "Dr Jones quotes Leslie Robertson (strucural engineer) as saying 'molten steel'. Most of the rest (if not all say molten metal). In a liquid form steel / zinc and aluminum are very hard to distinguish visually.

     It is exceedingly unlikely that molten steel would stay that way for very long even if a thermite reaction was used to bring the buildings down in the first place (by melting some of the structural support)."

     Colmes --

     In a radio interview with Alex Jones [prisonplanet.tv] (no relation), available on mp3 (I subscribe), Prof. Jones clarified that point, that rather than molten (structural) steel, the material was molten iron, virtually all of which was produced by the reaction, ie:

     FeO + Al -> Fe + AlO

     and the contribution of the structural material was secondary or minimal, actually vaporized at the cut points, and yes, it ran like greased lightning straight down as soon as there was any path, because of its great density.

     The structural steel was not melted but merely cut at break points, dismembered like a chicken at the joints.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 7:45pm

384. Ya know, a scary thought keeps coming to me, such that we are on the verge of - if not already ideologically waging - a second Civil War. The self proclaimed uniter has divided us like no other chief executive, wherein the red staters are enticed into hating the blue and vice versa. The contempt this administration has for our Constitution is matched only by the contempt its supporters visit upon its detractors. And us detractors respond with no less ferocity.

     About the only thing keeping us from killing each other is that we have the twin strawmen (inflammatory, yes, but used intentionally to underscore the contempt of Bush et al for all of us, Red and Blue alike) of the war on terror and the misadventure in Iraq through which to vent our collective spleens (similarly, the only only thing that is keeping Iraq from devolving in civil war is the fact that they have our precious sons and daughters at which to shoot - weird parallel, no?).

     Remember, red and blue state types, this administration doesn't give a flying f**k about anyone of us. We are at this juncture because of the colossal miscalculations and actions an administration run by those who would place us as citizens, the people for whom they work and to whom they must answer, at best fifth behind empire, party, corporate interests and (doubtfully) God. Every last bit of responsibility for that falls at the feet of one man, and one man alone.

     So what's it gonna be folks - a 'cold' Civil War (preserve us from a 'hot' war against our own again), or taking on the bastards who set us against one another so as to make it easy to play out their sick little game of Risk?

     Posted by skeletonman at 12/29/2005 @ 7:48pm

385. FRANKGRITS "Take a clue. Stay on topic. The problem with Democrats is that every time they pin the Repubs to the mat, they can't hold for the three count. Kinda reminds one of the fake wrestling matches. The Repubs on the other hand know how to stay on topic and hammer a point home."

     Well, yeah, sure, it's important. But when topics arise that overshadow the original, they are not to be allowed to excape unscathed.

     Face it: impeachment is a side issue. Titillating for those who only now are putting their first toe in the water, but trivial and divertive for the rest of us.

     Impeach and you get nowhere politically. Cheney? Hastert? Ted Stevens? McConnell??

     All this is a bandaid. This is like witnessing a murder on the school playground, and berating the murderer for walking thru the flower bed.

     The issue is: find some way to make the electorate realize that the crime of the century has been perpetrated upon them — not the equivalent of the holocaust, quite, at least in terms of numbers (unless you're an Iraqi, or unless you consider all our victims over the past 50 years all over the world) but by far the greatest crime perpetrated upon the American electorate by its representatives.

     Teapot dome, the reigning champion scandal, is a pea-shooter compared to this cannon.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 7:59pm

386. Colmes:

     "I can assure you that a 47 storey building will buckle and collapse if it is hot enough. Simply because a steel structure of this size has never before collapsed due to fire is not at all relevant.....have you ever seen a 47 storey building allowed to burn? Of course not, and you never will unless the City fire department is completely destroyed both emotionally and physically by previous events."

     OK, but can it get hot enough from jet fuel? from burning office furniture? I urge you to watch this program (free on the web) "Alex Jones at Ground Zero: The Use Of Explosives In the 9/11 Attack".

     Again, this pathetic blog engine won't let me link to such a long URL as this

     http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm

     However, it's short enough to avoid the added space, just too long to include the linking code (sigh).

     At 4:20 (min-sec) of this video, Jones makes the statement:

     "In the tragic days after 9-11, many prominent engineers across the world went public and said, 'There's no way that fire destroyed any of those buildings. It's never happened to a modern building. Buildings have burned for six, seven days before, and it hasn't happened.

     Before you state unequivocally that no building has burned that long, you might want to check your facts.

     At 12:40 into the video, check this out:

     "There has been over a hundred uncontrolled fires in skyscrapers in the last 50 years, and never has one collapsed, or come close to collapsing from fire. Only earthquakes and demolitions have brought these modern structures down."

     ...

     "Other skyscrapers, as we mentioned, ahve burned for days, or even weeks. Why don't they collapse? Because steel doesn't begin to weaken until 2000° of temperature. Around 2500° it becomes red hot, and at around 3000° starts to melt.

     Another example of this was the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, in mid-February of 2005. It burned for two days [dramatic footage at this point — PP.] at temperatures much higher, with white-hot flames shooting out of it for hundreds of feet.

     As we watched the Windsor Building burn, I was amazed to watch the media of the world say, 'well, the World Trade Center, and Building 7 fell from fire, so, its going to fall! We're just waiting for the collapse! But the collapse never came. All the major support pillars held fast."

     Please, people with understandable and honest questions, view this top-notch video.

     Anybody that has a very opinionated statement to make about 9-11, and can't spare 22 minutes to view this free and very high quality presentation — they're not credible, in my view.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 8:55pm

387. "One wore blue and one wore gray

     As they marched along their way

     The pipe and drum began to play

     All on a beautiful morning."

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 8:57pm

388. There will be NO IMPEACHMENT. I believe not. Why? Simply because, as Hitler and others before, the Neocons OWN the Congress, OWN the Supreme Court, and every politician save but a very few, fully support Bush. Even when Bush's term is over, the Neocons will just replace the stoodge puppet with someone else. The Democrats fully support Bush and the Neocons. The corporations own the USA. This is the definition of Nazism. By the way, the Bush clan supported the Nazi's for many years! There is nothing new. "I told you so", was said by the Founding Fathers back in the 18th Century. The American people are cowardly, stupid and also in denial. The US Constitution is not taught in schools and the teenagers fully support the elimination of the Bill of Rights. When the USA becomes economically bankrupt within 20 years, the American Empire will collapse. How much do YOU think a loaf of bread will cost then? The Republic is history. It never was a democracy anyway. Greed has destroyed the very fabric of every American, including the Slave States and the fanatical radical fundamentalists. What's happening with Brad Pitt these days anyway? Let's get our priorities straight. Anyone for Buffy? The American Myth is dead and buried. Rome lasted 2000 years, the USA, slightly less! It's every man for him/her self, as usual! There won't be any revolution or civil war in the USA. No, not for generations! When it does come, if it ever does, it will mean the slaughter of many millions of lives. Just like Rome, the USA will remain permanently on a war footing. King George won!

     Posted by mozartsbum at 12/29/2005 @ 9:43pm

389. MOZARTSBUM:

     Alas, you are probably right. Unfortunately. The death of the republic is at hand.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/29/2005 @ 9:49pm

390. "The American Myth is dead and buried."

     I can't bear to give up on her just yet.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 9:51pm

391. Jorchy -- are you home?

     can you chat a few?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 9:51pm

392. Sure bro... I'm home, at long last.

     Posted by jorcheim at 12/29/2005 @ 9:58pm

393. I haven't given up on her either, Proudprimate. I'm just in mourning at her death. In my heart and mind, I will always, as long as I have breath left in my body, be a Paineite. "Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good": Thomas Paine

     Then again, being partly of Cherokee Indian blood, I offer this: An elder Cherokee Native American was teaching his grandchildren about life. He said to them, "A fight is going on inside me...It is a terrible fight, and it is between two wolves. One wolf represents fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, pride and superiority. The other wolf stands for joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. This same fight is going on inside of you and every other person too."

     They thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?" The old Cherokee simply replied..."The one I feed."

     Happy New World Order

     Posted by mozartsbum at 12/29/2005 @ 10:31pm

394. "They thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, 'Which wolf will win?' The old Cherokee simply replied...'The one I feed.' "

     That's excellent.

     How like Paul in Galatians 5:22-23

     "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 10:42pm

395. verse 15,

     "But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another."

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 10:43pm

396. where did you learn that story?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/29/2005 @ 10:44pm

397. They thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?" The old Cherokee simply replied..."The one I feed."

     Happy New World Order

     Posted by MOZARTSBUM 12/29/2005 @ 10:31pm

     that one is going in my sayings file

     Posted by Will C. at 12/29/2005 @ 11:09pm

398. Plunger stated:

     "Even supposing the WTC was destroyed with an explosive charge it would prove the greatest conspiracy in the history of planet earth."

     I agree with you, and I don't trust this administration/cabal at all.

     Speaking of a conspiracy (please look at what I'm about to say with an open mind) let's go one step further.

     For the last couple years I've been noticing multple jets in the sky leaving their so called contrails that turn what was a clear blue sky day into complete overcast. These are not ordinary contrails. They have a name for these trails, Chemtrails. These jets work the skies sometimes in pairs just about everyday and night making X's and multiple parallel lines filling the sky with haze. You may have seen it. If not, take a look at the sky and the next time you tune into the weather channel or MSNBC, and CNN or even televison commericals now. Take a real close look at the backgrounds. You'll see the wavy white lines/streaks, especally the weather channel. This is no joke and I'm not trying to scare anyone. Let's call it awarness.

     The point I'm getting at is they're spraying somthing in the skies and it is also making many people sick. If you live on east coast see how many of your relatives or friends have sinus/head colds accompanied with a persistent cough? Both my wife and I are sick, my son and daughter are sick just about everyone of my neighbors are sick, they tell me that all their friends are sick. I guess this is all coincindental? Hardly! Do a Google search of Chemtrails. The question is why are they doing this? Just last Friday afternoon I looked up and there were aproximately 15 jets in the sky at one time spewing only God knows what?

     So you if want to talk about conspiracy, I'm with you on the trade towers and may God bless those who perished. As far as what they're spraying in the skies, I guess we'll never know.

     http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html

     I have many photo's like the ones on web page.

     Posted by Munich at 12/29/2005 @ 11:45pm

399. Munich --

     In 1997, Bill Cohen, then Sec'y of Defense, gave a speech at a CONFERENCE ON TERRORISM [fas.org] hosted by Sam Nunn, in which he said:

     "Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

     I heard a discussion of these patterns you see in the vapor trails on Alex Jones program, which is where I learned about this 8-year-old quote from the SecDef.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/30/2005 @ 12:15am

400. Spread this Powerful PNAC Video everywhere> then the I-Word will be:

     http://openyourmindseye.blogspot.com/2005/10/pnac-video.html

     Posted by yankhadenuf at 12/30/2005 @ 01:53am

401. An elder Cherokee Native American was teaching his grandchildren about life. He said to them, "A fight is going on inside me...It is a terrible fight, and it is between two wolves. One wolf represents fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, pride and superiority. The other wolf stands for joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. This same fight is going on inside of you and every other person too."

     They thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?" The old Cherokee simply replied..."The one I feed."

     Cognitive Dissonance:

     Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

     Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning: if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know -- particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge -- they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned". END

     http://100777.com/#3

     http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=9891&

     Posted by plunger at 12/30/2005 @ 06:46am

402. September 4, 2001 (D): Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. moves their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia, one week before the 9/11 attacks. The Israeli government owns 49 percent of the company. [Virginian-Pilot, 9/4/01] Zim announced the move and its date six months earlier. [Virginian-Pilot, 4/3/01] More than 200 workers had just been moved out; about 10 are still in the building making final moving arrangements on 9/11, but escape alive. [Jerusalem Post, 9/13/01, Journal of Commerce, 10/18/01] The move leaves only one Israeli company, ClearForest, with 18 employees, in the WTC on 9/11. The four or five employees in the building at the time manage to escape. [Jerusalem Post, 9/13/01] One year later, a Zim ship is impounded attempting to ship Israeli military equipment to Iran; it is speculated that this is done with the knowledge of Israel. [AFP, 8/29/02 (B)] Given the Israeli government ties, the Odigo warning (see September 11, 2001 (C)), and the Israeli art student spy ring (see December 2000-April 2001), some have speculated that the move was more than just lucky.

     September 10, 2001 (B): An Army School of Advanced Military Studies issues a report written by elite US army officers, which is made public just prior to 9/11. The report gives the following description for the Mossad: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." [Washington Times, 9/10/01] After 9/11 and revelations of a large Mossad spy ring operating mysteriously in the US, some suggest that the Mossad did in fact do just that on 9/11.

     September 11, 2001 (C): Two employees of Odigo, Inc., in Israel, receive warnings of an imminent attack in New York City around two hours before the first plane hits the WTC. Odigo, one of the world's largest instant messaging companies, has its headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The Odigo Research and Development offices where the warnings were received are located in Herzliyya, a suburb of Tel Aviv. Israeli security and the FBI were notified immediately after the 9/11 attacks began. The two employees claim not to know who sent the warnings. "Odigo service includes a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact others based on certain interests or demographics. [Alex] Diamandis [Odigo vice president of sales and marketing] said it was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message." [Ha'aretz, 9/26/01, Washington Post, 9/27/01 (C)] FTW Odigo claims the warning did not specifically mention the WTC, but the company won't say what was specified, claiming, "Providing more details would only lead to more conjecture." [Washington Post, 9/28/01] Odigo gave the FBI the internet address of the message's sender so the name of the sender could be found. [Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 9/26/01] Two months later it is reported that the FBI is still investigating the matter, but there have been no reports since. [Courier Mail, 11/20/01] Could the message have been a mass e-mail sent to a large group? Could this be related to the "art student spy ring"? Did the original senders directly inform the FBI as well, and if not, why not?

     September 11, 2001 (G): The 9/11 attack: four planes are hijacked, two crash into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and one crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. At least 3,000 people are killed. A more detailed timeline focusing on the hours of this attack appears on a separate page.

     September 11, 2001 (W): Five Israelis are arrested for "puzzling behavior" related to the WTC attacks. They are arrested around 4:30 P.M. after having filmed the burning WTC from the roof of their company's building near Liberty State Park, then shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. They were spotted by a neighbor who called the police and the FBI. The police tracked them down in a van with the words "Urban Moving Systems" written on the side. [Bergen Record, 9/12/01, Ha'aretz, 9/17/01] One man was found with $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, another had two passports on him, and a box cutter was found in the van. [ABC News, 6/21/02] Investigators say that "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted... It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen." [Bergen Record, 9/12/01] One of these Israelis later says, "Our purpose was to document the event." [ABC News, 6/21/02] The FBI later concludes at least two are Mossad agents and that all were on a Mossad surveillance mission. The FBI interrogates them for weeks. [Forward, 3/15/02] They are held on immigration violation charges and released 71 days later. [ABC News, 6/21/02] Their names are later identified as Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel. [Forward, 3/15/02]

     September 11, 2001 (BB): Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when asked what the 9/11 attacks mean for relations between the US and Israel, replies, "It's very good." Then he edited himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." [New York Times, 9/12/01] A week later, the Village Voice states, "From national networks to small-town newspapers, the view that America's terrible taste of terrorism will finally do away with even modest calls for the restraint of Israel's military attacks on Palestinian towns has become an instant, unshakable axiom. ... Now, support for Israel in America is officially absolute, and Palestinians are cast once again as players in a global terrorist conspiracy." [Village Voice, 9/19/01]

     September 14, 2001 (K): Dominick Suter, owner of the company Urban Moving Systems, flees the country to Israel. The FBI later tells ABC News that "Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation." Suter has been tied to the five Israeli agents caught filming the WTC attack. The FBI had questioned him around September 12, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. But when they returned a few days later, Suter is gone (see September 11, 2001 (W)). [Forward, 3/15/02, New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, 12/13/01, ABC News, 6/21/01]

     December 12-15, 2001: Fox News broadcasts a remarkable series about the Israeli "art student" spy ring. The report mentions that at least 60 more Israelis have been detained or arrested since 9/11. "There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it." When a government source is asked if the Israeli spies knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened, he responds "The principal question is 'how could they have not known?'" "Investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying ... is considered career suicide." A highly placed investigator says there are 'tie-ins' between the spy ring and 9/11. But when asked for details, he flatly refuses to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'" The report also reveals that Amdocs, an Israeli company, is recording virtually every phone call in the US and could be passing information on to the Israeli government (similar claims were first raised in 2000 [Insight, 5/29/00]). Fox News suggests they might be using this position to impede the 9/11 investigation. [Fox News, 12/12/01]

     December 16, 2001: Fox News removes its series on the "art student" spy ring (see December 12-15, 2001) from its website after only two days, in response to pressure from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) and others (see for instance, [CAMERA, 12/12/01, CAMERA, 12/13/01]). CAMERA for instance, suggests the reporter "has something, personally, about Israel... Maybe he's very sympathetic to the Arab side." [Salon, 5/7/02] The head of the ADL calls the report "sinister dangerous innuendo which fuels anti-Semitism." [Forward, 12/21/01] Yet there doesn't appear to be any substance to these personal attacks (and Forward later reverses its stance on the spy ring [Forward, 3/15/02]). Fox News also never makes a formal repudiation or correction about the series. The contents of the series continues to be mostly ignored by the mainstream media, but it makes a big impact inside the US government. For instance, an internal DEA communiqué from December 18 mentions the Fox report by name, and warns of security breaches in telecommunications as described in the Fox report. [Salon, 5/7/02]

     March 5, 2002: It is reported that many spies in the uncovered Israeli spy ring seemed to have been trailing the 9/11 hijackers. For instance, five Israeli spies are intercepted in the tiny town of Hollywood, Florida, and four 9/11 hijackers are known to have spent time in Hollywood, Florida. [Le Monde, 3/5/02, Reuters, 3/5/02, Jane's Intelligence Digest, 3/15/02] In one case, some Israeli spies lived at 4220 Sheridan Street, only a few hundred feet from where Atta was living at 3389 Sheridan Street. Israeli spies appear to have been close to at least 10 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. [Salon, 5/7/02]

     March 11, 2002: A newspaper reports that the DEA study on Israeli "art students" determined the "students" all had "recently served in the Israeli military, the majority in intelligence, electronic signal intercept or explosive ordnance units." [Palm Beach Post, 3/11/02]

     http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/AAisraeli.html

     GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

     SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.

     GWEN IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about?

     SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.

     http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-graham-admits.htm

     Posted by plunger at 12/30/2005 @ 07:04am

403. FALSE FLAG ATTACK AS PRETEXT TO STRIKE IRAN?:

     Al Qaeda claims Israel attack link

     Thursday, December 29, 2005; Posted: 8:33 p.m. EST (01:33 GMT)

     (CNN) -- In what may be a sign that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror group is expanding its operations, Al Qaeda in Iraq has posted a statement claiming responsibility for firing missiles from Lebanon into northern Israel earlier this week.

     The statement, posted Thursday on Web sites used previously by al Qaeda in Iraq, cannot be independently verified by CNN.

     The three rockets were fired late Tuesday from Lebanon into the Israeli town of Kiryat Shimona. The attack resulted in minor damage and no casualties.

     However, the Al Qaeda in Iraq statement called the attack a success.

     http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/29/mideast.alqaeda.claim/

     Posted by plunger at 12/30/2005 @ 07:19am

404. If the foregoing does not provide "probable cause" to warrant investigation, what would?

     If the country named were ANY country other than Israel, how would you feel about these events being swept under the radar?

     Posted by plunger at 12/30/2005 @ 07:50am

405. Plunger --

     Thanks a million for the link to Paul Thompson's trove of links. I'm HD'ing it all before it disappears.

     Oh, and by the way, "probable cause" is not welcome in Amerika anymore. Even mentioning it is . . . excuse me, there's a knock at the door . . .

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/30/2005 @ 08:38am

406. Plunger,

     Thanks for your diligent work. My purpose is not to debunk, but simply to make me more comfortable with the theory.....

     One of your most significant Israeli Mossad connections is the five "dancing" Israeli's. When I noted that they had claimed not to be dancing you informed me that they have failed seven lie detector tests.

     As Mossad agents (with high enough clearance to be USA based spies) wouldn't they be trained to manipulate lie detector tests at will? I mean, I've seen the movies and CIA agents know how to pass or fail those tests so why wouldn't Mossad agents also know?

     Posted by colmes at 12/30/2005 @ 09:12am

407. Colmes:

     Believe it or not, my role is not to convince you. I simply report and you decide.

     You mentioned earlier that you "understood" that building 7 had been damaged by falling debris, but never provided any links or proof that would allow us to understand how it came to be that you arrived at that understanding. Since making that statement, have you arrived at a different understanding? Have you come across any documentation to indicate any significant structural damage to building 7, as you previously "understood?"

     You have also mentioned that the five Mossad Agents had claimed not to be dancing (celebrating) on 9/11, but have provided no links or proof of this assertion.

     As to what you've seen in the movies about lie detector tests and spies, I fail to see the relevance.

     Have you read through the 60 page DEA report on the "Israeli Art Student Spy Ring?"

     I'm speaking strictly of real world events which were documented in the mainstream medai, and clearly your statement that "My purpose is not to debunk" requires closer scrutiny.

     If your purpose were to learn, you would be the one sharing new revelations and discoveries every day based on your own independent research, all of which is readily available (for as long as it lasts) at Google.com.

     Give it a go and see what you learn.

     Some recomended key words include:

     Thermite 9/11

     Cheney NORAD

     Odigo 9/11

     Zim Urban Movers

     Chertoff Greenquest

     Dancing Israelis

     Mossad False Flag

     USS Liberty

     DEA Israeli Art Students

     Carl Cameron Fox Israeli Spies

     ABC 20/20 White Van

     When your done reading through everything you find on those searches, let us know what you learned.

     Posted by plunger at 12/30/2005 @ 10:26am

408. March 5, 2002: It is reported that many spies in the uncovered Israeli spy ring seemed to have been trailing the 9/11 hijackers. For instance, five Israeli spies are intercepted in the tiny town of Hollywood, Florida, and four 9/11 hijackers are known to have spent time in Hollywood, Florida. [Le Monde, 3/5/02, Reuters, 3/5/02, Jane's Intelligence Digest, 3/15/02] In one case, some Israeli spies lived at 4220 Sheridan Street, only a few hundred feet from where Atta was living at 3389 Sheridan Street. Israeli spies appear to have been close to at least 10 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. [Salon, 5/7/02]

     The more that is presented (and, really, I am not asking for more) about the Israeli 9/11 conspiracy, the more overstatement there appears to be. First of all, Hollywood, FL is not a "tiny town". I lived there in the late '90s and the population was approximately 120,000, with the population being incredibly diverse. Second, how good are these Israeli spies if they are living "a few hundred feet" from where Atta lived, but six months after Atta died? I'm no spying genius, but it would seem to me that after 9/11 little information could have been garnered in Hollywood. Now, the beach is beautiful and they have a number of good restaurants, as well as a thriving Jewish community. I would like to bet there are still a number of Israelis and Jewish-Americans living on Sheridan St.

     In addition, Atta was reported to have eaten at Shuckers Restaurant in downtown Hollywood on 9/10. From experience I can tell you that their service was poor enough to drive anyone insane, not necessarily fly-a-plane-into-a-building insane, but it was awful and the food nothing to write home about.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/30/2005 @ 10:44am

409. These are some photos I took this past spring. Notice the seven trails in the sky, all of which are from different jets. What is the purpose of this?

     http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/munich425/album?.dir=f3aa&.src=ph&store=&p rodid=&.done=http%3a//pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/munich425/my_photos

     Posted by Munich at 12/30/2005 @ 11:11am

410. Munich - sorry but those trails do not look any different from ones I saw years ago as a child. So the major airlines are in cahoots with the government to spray populations with . . . what? Any credible tests of what is in this material?

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/30/2005 @ 11:25am

411. Those jet trails are an interesting thing. I saw somebody from Eastern Washington at an antiwar conference here in Seattle a couple of years ago, and they had those polaroid photographs that depicted criss cross jet trails too. I've never seen anything like that, even as a child. What's up with that criss cross pattern? Is it some exercise "defense" jet fighters employ? It doesn't look like any crop spraying I've ever seen, it would hardly be conducted at that height in such a manner. So what is that shit, really?

     Doumer: Demand the proof about the WTC from the government because it's my country? Haven't I got enough to do trying to prove it's my country?

     Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 12:11pm

412. KVH, is this the constituency you were seeking? People with sanity issues? ;-)

     And, before you fruitcakes jump all over me with your conspiracy theories, let me just say I believe everything you've written!

     Now I'm going to slowly reach for the door and step into the hallway, not letting you out of my sight until the door is secure again...

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/30/2005 @ 12:15am

     These posts cannot be more frightening to you than what YOUR side might post at redstate.org! It's a big broad country out there and since we have limited the debate to either this side or that, there is little room for those inhabiting the endless number of fringes. At some point, most of us will find ourselves on one fringe. Those in the middle aren't much fun anyway--just a bunch of pure cynics or uncreative minds.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/30/2005 @ 12:32pm

413. Actually, I don't know anybody who doesn't have sanity issues these days, although that might just be another one of my shitass projections, as my eloquent brother in law sometimes puts it. "One never knows what will happen, do one?" (Fats Waller)

     Anything's possible, as Doumer and all the other conspiracy theorists here suggest. I think we have to kind of roll with it, really. We're all absurd, Abe Maslow said. And nothing's funnier than the worms imagining themselves to be God. Ain't that us?

     Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 12:50pm

414. .

     MUNICH 12/30/2005 @ 11:11am

     These are some photos I took this past spring. Notice the seven trails in the sky, all of which are from different jets. What is the purpose of this?

     What is the purpose of treads left by your shoes in the snow, or of the ruts of wheels left in a muddy road, or of wakes left by ships?

     You must know those are contrails. Aircraft engines burning fuel spew hot water vapor. When that steam hits the the cold atmosphere high up it condenses and soon the wet air turns into tiny ice crystals.

     When there is not much wind those trails can stay in the air for a long time. The trails of other planes flying at right angles can than intersect. In busy airspace that may produce a sky filled with white streaks in strange patterns.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/30/2005 @ 1:04pm

415. Holy Crap!

     http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/

     Posted by plunger at 12/30/2005 @ 1:20pm

416. Alright, I'll buy that, NACl. Makes sense to me. but if it's about the frequency of jet traffic and the absence of winds, why aren't patterns seen like that enhanced, linear tic tac toe grid seen over locations like New York, where some of the heaviest traffic in the country is, and where air currents are often quite still? And why would they stay over an area like Yakima, Washington, which doesn't see anywhere near the traffic in air travel Seattle does, and which gets a pretty steady supply of winds coming over the Cascades from the ocean?

     I'm not saying your explanation doesn't make sense, it's probably more than likely for all I know, but I can understand why people would be suspicious. For my own part, I doubt the government needs to employ such mechanisms, the media does quite well without all that.

     Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 1:21pm

417. And for that matter, I suppose the polaroid photographs could be faked through computer graphics.

     Posted by Legba at 12/30/2005 @ 1:22pm

418. For the record:

     Last year I spoke with someone who works at a local airport and who knows air traffic. This person told me that these jet trails are not normal air traffic. And! When I pressed further, was told that it was in-fact military. However, he didn't know as to what base they were flying out of.

     And then there's this very interesting article:

     http://www.lasvegastribune.com/20050819/headline1.html

     Posted by Munich at 12/30/2005 @ 1:40pm

419. FYI:

     Any discussion of chem trails and UFO's serves to diminish the serious nature of the conspiracy required to pull off 9/11. Frequently people who raise such subjects in the midst of 9/11 discussions do so with the intent to lump all conspiracies into the same bucket so as to diminsh the credibility of the original subject. This is actually a tried and true (recommended) tactic of the ADL - in concert with accustations of "anti-Semitism."

     For what it's worth.

     Posted by plunger at 12/30/2005 @ 1:40pm

420. Regarding the contrails: earlier this month a friend flew cross-country from CA to FL. The sky was clear as he flew over the beautiful southwest. He noted to me then that he was amazed by the number of other jets he saw in the air over what he estimated was New Mexico. In flights I have taken in the last couple of months, I have noticed on two occasions that my jet was flying through the crisscrossed lines of contrails. It happens.

     The last couple of days have really taken this site into another realm, a realm that seems little interested in discussing known problems and more interested in speculating about the unknown. This is an interesting realm, but it makes me feel a little cooky when posters like NACL can legitimately point, for example, to a lack of Left support for those in Darfur. No consipiracy necessary here. The problem has been evident for some time and makes the Neo-Con method of shocking and aweing people into better lives seem truly awful; that is, it would were the Left able to contrast life in Darfur to that experienced in pre-invasion Iraq. Meanwhile, we distract ourselves chasing vapor trails and attacking windmills.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/30/2005 @ 1:44pm

421. I vote, (if I can find a machine that's not rigged, ha), to impeach as many of the BC regime ASAP. Waiting just because others in the administration may ‘not' get dragged into the criminal indictments/impeachment and knocked out of the royal linage, will not stop a necessary reversal in policies that are gravely needed to correct the direction our country is heading in. If Germany had had the foresight and ability to impeach Hitler after they elected him but within x years before he had enough power not to be touched politically, don't you think the Germans would have done just that? Wouldn't that kind of an action, if not put the brakes on his dictatorship and the Nazi movement, at least slowed it down to a point where examination of their methods and direction could happen in a more democratic and transparent way? Thus I say whatever can be done to avert a full-blown BC regime dictatorship here in the USA be done ASAP. At least there's ‘still' a political solution. But it has to happen as quickly as possible-- there may not be a solution later, political or otherwise. Stop being distracted.

     I say turn off your TV's; start writing/email your rep's, all of them, Fed/State/local, Mayors and Governors too, that you want the BC regime impeached for all the reasons stated previously. If the possible 60 percent of the US citizenry that would like seeing the BC regime kicked out for lying us to war and illegally spying on us, were to do this every day from now on ‘til 11/06, our rep's ‘may' feel compelled to do so before then.

     Posted by Bushfools at 12/30/2005 @ 2:30pm

422. Bushfools:

     NOTHING short of exposing 9/11 to be an inside job will stop these guys, NOTHING.

     Unless and until those with the proof step forward from the shadows to prove to the American people that 9/11 was an inside job, the Republicans will simply hold their ground and not impeach.

     No amount of letter writing will matter. Only the truth of 9/11 - exposed for the world to see, will shame those in positions of power into relinquishing just enough of it to allow the legal system to function.

     This single fact is the only reason I blog.

     Posted by plunger at 12/30/2005 @ 2:41pm

423. Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/27/2005 @

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/30/2005 @ 2:32pm

     What's wrong Rio? Nothing new to post, you have to re-post? No original thoughts? On anything? Red State does not hold your interest? Kiddie chat rooms not engaging enough?

     Very sad Rio!

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 2:56pm

424. Plunger,

     Is this a Catch 22? It won't be ‘fully' investigated unless there's a ‘new' administration but you want an investigation before there's a new administration but there will never be a full and transparent investigation while this administration has power…

     I think a majority of the US still questions the events of 9/11 and the negligence of this administration associated with it to warrant your continued pursuit and dissemination of the facts as you find them. But I see the cover-up surrounding 9/11 and more questions about WTC than answers as another reason for demanding impeachment hearings.

     I take it you're sending all this information to every media type, as well as gov rep's, leg's and exec's, you can? I remember reading something in passing on a flight in a (I think) Scientific America (n) (sp) that was about WTC engineering analysis, but didn't get far before giving it back to the passenger that had come back. Sorry to say but because of the circumstances I was very distracted and didn't buy a copy to see what, if any findings, had been discussed. But my point is, you just never know which publications may be doing similar investigations into this and could use some of your links to dig further into it. Just a thought. Keep it up.

     Posted by Bushfools at 12/30/2005 @ 3:28pm

425. Bushfools:

     I appreciate your encouragement. thank you.

     I have been pretty prolific - as have others, with pushing this information under the noses of the key players in the mainstream media. They all know it.

     There will be no impeachment without massive 9/11 specific protests. Evidence can come from many quarters, as evidenced by the outing of Bush's formerly secret domestic spy program.

     Did you see the movie "Network" where the news anchor went nuts on live TV and spilled the beans to the viewing audience?

     I'm hopeful that one will have a crisis of conscience and go completely off script, and that others will follow suit.

     They can't fire every news anchor for telling the truth.

     Posted by plunger at 12/30/2005 @ 4:08pm

426. Plunger,

     That's the spirit. Hope you're right. But I just read a BBC article stating that the BC illegal spying program was being investigated by the BC Justice Dept, not for the illegality of the spying but to seek who leaked it! I know congress has to step in for anything to move forward, but do you think if the BC regime is being hit with all the investigations (9/11, Iraq, Katrina, Corporate pay-offs, money laundering, illegal Spying, etc.) all at once, that maybe there's more chance of more leaks and enough info availability to prove an impeachable offence, just one-- which will open the flood gates to all? Just a New Years wish.

     And by the way here's a link in case you hadn't already seen it:

     http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20011124/fob1.asp

     Posted by Bushfools at 12/30/2005 @ 4:32pm

427. Just a New Years wish. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 12/30/2005 @ 4:32pm

     Right on bro. That little birdie on my shoulder keeps chirping away...Abramoff...Abramhoff..tweet...tweet.

     My guess, by mid January this guy is gonna sing like my little bird. Perhaps...this will be all the catalyst that is required for MSM to wake up and start flayling away.

     Hell, I'll give up all my vices to see this happen.......... (maybe not all).

     Posted by doumer at 12/30/2005 @ 5:03pm

428. Don't push the I stuff!!! Why? How does the name President Cheney sound? Bernardt

     Posted by Bernardt at 12/30/2005 @ 6:52pm

429. Doumer --

     "Abramoff" is right! If we're talking about impeaching the whole GOP en masse, now we're talking! (And half the Democrats, did I mention?) And 3/4 of the electorate? I guess that's getting carried away . . . .

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/30/2005 @ 7:35pm

430. Plunger:

     "Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9cm at 932 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle."

     Steel expands at 6.3 millionths of an inch per inch per degree Fahrenheit.

     9cm is 3.5", divided by 6.3E-6 = 561905" per degree for an original unit length. At a temp of 932°F (-68 F for STP = 864° temp differential), that yields a span of 650", or 54' of steel girder, to have that amount of expansion at that temperature, ie., greater than its "room temperature" length.

     So that's a reasonable girder length for such a structure.

     But we have to keep in mind that this steel structure is one giant excellent heat sink, and the buckling is only going to take place if one girder expands and its neighbor doesn't. Sure, the glass might fall out, but it probably would have broken in the heat, and its expansion rate is pretty high, about 3/4 of that of steel (window glass that is; pyrex is about 1/4).

     It seems to me the buckling thing is overstated. How was the structure joined? Rivets? Bolts? Weld? Just the tight face to face contact would carry heat pretty well, with that much load on the joints you know they're not insulated from each other by "dust", or patina, &c. They're biting into one another. See what I mean?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/30/2005 @ 8:07pm

431. Plunger:

     "Unless and until those with the proof step forward from the shadows to prove to the American people that 9/11 was an inside job, the Republicans will simply hold their ground and not impeach."

     That's why taking at least one House of Congress in '06 is the key to everything. The power to subpoena! Think what Conyers could do, what Henry Waxman could do, what Cynthia McKinney could do with subpoena power, even to getting Prof. Jones his samples from under the rubble?

     That and only that can save us, IMO. And Diebold is no way dead yet.

     That's why I am pushing, with you, to get the shocker out there, like Gandalf, to break the spell that Grima Wormtongue has over Theoden King (the voter).

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/30/2005 @ 8:46pm

432. And as Cato ceased not to include the words "Delenda est Carthago" in every speech to the Senate, so I will never let the evidence of high crimes, especially what is available about building 7, to be absent from my commentaries, here and in person, and everywhere else.

     We have only one Constitution to lose. We have survived many wars and many elections, but if we lose America, w

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/30/2005 @ 9:25pm

433. The evidence is very compelling that the Roosevelt Administration deliberately failed to act to stop Pearl Harbor in order to mobilize enough national anger to enter World War II.

     The PNAC plan, which is in the process of being implemented to the letter, called for a "New Pearl Harbor" as the essential trigger for its implementation.

     The Signatories to the PNAC plan include most of those who worked within the power positions to direct the activities surrounding 9/11 and the lead up to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

     GW's youngest brother, Marvin Bush, was the director of a casualty insurance company with coverage of the World Trade Center. That the coverage was stopped sometime before 9-11. Also Marvin Bush was a director of a firm that was involved with the security of the World Trade Center.

     John O'Neill:

     He was Director of Counterterrorism at the New York offices of the F.B.I. until he resigned in August 2001. One of the world's top experts on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, he grew to believe that "all the answers" regarding what they needed to destroy Al Qaeda lay in Saudi Arabia. However, starting in January 2001, Bush blocked all efforts by Mr. O'Neill to investigate Saudi ties to bin Laden. In the summer of 2001 O'Neill declared that the main obstacles to his investigation were U.S. oil interests. In late August, a frustrated O'Neill quit the FBI and took a position as head of security for the World Trade Center.

     O'Neill became the head of Security at the World Trade Center, and about his first day of work was 9-11. He was outside one of the buildings when he phoned a son and a friend to reassure them he was fine.

     O'Neill is reported to have called FBI headquarters, and then re-entered one of the towers to help others. The official story is that O'Neill was inside when the buildings collapsed.

     How convenient for the Bush administration that Mr. O'Neill would not only die in the attack, but also that he would make such a call. Not only was the Bush administration's most dangerous critic forever silenced, but he also provided the administration the perfect story to explain his death.

     Cheney & Lay:

     Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club's and Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the project's costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.

     Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, "These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public."

     When first assuming office in early 2001, President Bush's top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction--or any of the other goals he espoused later that year following 9-11. Rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from suppliers abroad to U.S. markets. In the months before he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with periodic electrical power blackouts in California. In addition, oil imports rose to more than 50% of total consumption for the first time in history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the country's long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the nation's "energy crisis" was his most important task as president.

     The energy turmoil of 2000-01 prompted Bush to establish a task force charged with developing a long-range plan to meet U.S. energy requirements. With the advice of his close friend and largest campaign contributor, Enron CEO, Ken Lay, Bush picked Vice President Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, to head this group. In 2001 the Task Force formulated the National Energy Policy (NEP), or Cheney Report, bypassing possibilities for energy independence and reduced oil consumption with a declaration of ambitions to establish new sources of oil.

     The Bush Administration's struggle to keep secret the workings of Cheney's Energy Task Force has been ongoing since early in the President's tenure.

     http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html

     In the spring of 2001 the severity of the California energy emergency had inspired demands for government action, and Enron had a problem.

     Enron CEO Kenneth Lay knew he needed high-level help. So he arranged to meet with a man who had headed a corporation with extensive business ties to Enron and who had been a prime recipient of Enron's political largesse. Vice President Dick Cheney cleared his calendar for an April 17 private meeting with Lay regarding what aides described as "energy policy matters" and "the energy crisis in California." At the meeting Lay handed Cheney a memo that read in part: "The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps...."

     The day after he met with Lay, Cheney gave a rare phone interview to the Los Angeles Times that had one recurrent theme: Price caps were out of the question. Dismissing the strategy as "short-term political relief for the politicians," Cheney bluntly declared, "I don't see that as a possibility."

     Indeed, so close was the Cheney-Enron relationship that it is entirely reasonable to ask whether ethical and legal lines were crossed. That possibility offers the most realistic explanation for Cheney's refusal to disclose details of his Enron contacts to Congress.

     Cheney's refusal to cooperate with investigators--which presidential historian Stanley Kutler refers to as part of a broad "assault on the legal and Constitutional order" by the Bush Administration--forms the most powerful argument for the appointment of a special counsel.

     http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols

     The BBC was told by Niaz Naik, a Pakistani Foreign Secretary, that senior American officials were warning them as early as mid-July, 2001 that military action for mid-October was being planned for Afghanistan.

     Say what?

     In 1996, the Department of Energy was issuing reports on the desirability of a pipeline through Afghanistan, and in 1998, Unocal testified before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that this pipeline was crucial to transport Caspian Basin oil to the Indian Ocean.

     Wouldn't if be nice to learn the details of how Lay and Cheney were divvying up the oil fields in Iraq on a big map, even before 9/11?

     Wouldn't it be enlightening to hear that Lay knew for a fact that 9/11 was going to happen as the pretext for the war plan which he clearly had knowledge of prior to 9/11?

     Why would you sit around countless energy planning meetings dividing up the oil fields of Iraq in advance of 9/11 unless there were a plan in place to make it possible?

     Such a plan would by necessity be a war plan, and this war plan was actually in place prior to 9/11.

     Surely any good war plan requires at its core a starting point, a trigger if you will that provides a good "cover story" to implement it. Clearly you can't just go around invading countries without a good reason...you need to be attacked first, then retaliate.

     Was 9/11 simply part of the war plan?

     Why wouldn't it have been?

     You can't hit the "GO" button without a pretext.

     9/11 was the pretext for the invasion of the Middle East - all by design.

     So the implementation of such a plan would require BY NECESSITY the implementation of a FALSE FLAG ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES of such magnitude that it would rival the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor thereby invoking the Pavlovian response which resulted.

     If you were looking for anyone to pull off the perfect False Flag Operation on your behalf, there is only one place you would look...Israel's Mossad.

     The so-called Energy Crisis in California was entirely fabricated of whole cloth by none other than Ken Lay's Enron - in concert with Poppie Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and even Alan Greenspan.

     The only thing more outrageous than these theories is the belief that the timing of 9/11 was a coincidence. It would be a stretch (even for a COINCIDENCE THEORIST), to contend that all of these matters are not directly related.

     If you believe the media, John P. O'Neill was simply another innocent victim killed in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. But you don't need much imagination to suspect something deeper was at work.

     Posted by plunger at 12/31/2005 @ 08:35am

434. Plunger —

     I always consume your posts with interest. One point I think you neglected here is the email I got from Greg Palast on Oct 5 2003 entitled "Arnold's Enron Secret" [alternet.org]

     Paragraph 2:

     "The wannabe governor has yet to deny that on May 17, 2001, at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, he had consensual political intercourse with Enron chieftain Kenneth Lay. Also frolicking with Arnold and Ken was convicted stock swindler Mike Milken."

     It seems to me that all the unbelievable turpitude of the Enron crimes, including tricks called Death Star, Fat Boy, Ricochet, and Get Shorty. From the Austin Chronicle: (URL =

     http://www.austinchronicle.com /issues/dispatch/2002-05-17/pols_capitol.html

     don't forget to remove the space from the URL)

     Briefly, here's how a few of the scams worked:

     "Death Star": Enron would overschedule its expected power transmissions to create the illusion that the state's grid would be overloaded, then receive state payment for "relieving" the congestion. The beauty of this con, the company's memos noted, is that "Enron gets paid for moving energy to relieve congestion without actually moving any energy or relieving any congestion." It's the sort of protection deal that would make Tony Soprano proud.

     "Fat Boy": This scam (aka "Inc-ing") also involved overscheduling power transmission -- for example, to a company subsidiary that didn't really need all of it. Then Enron would sell the "excess" power to the state at a premium.

     "Ricochet": Also called "megawatt laundering" (by analogy to money laundering), Ricochet was the power equivalent of a real-estate land flip: buy in-state power cheaply, flip it out-of-state to an intermediary, then re-sell it to California at a highly inflated "imported" price. There were others, but you get the general idea: the only "invisible hand" in this pseudo-free market -- heavily promoted by Enron and its lobbyist allies -- was Enron's. The Enron memos also say that traders from other companies (with even larger interests in the California market) were doing the same, and now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says it will force them to cough up the evidence. Yet California began complaining to FERC as early as May of 1999 that the big energy companies were manipulating the market for billions of dollars. The regulators did nothing.

     It's clear to me that there was more afoot than robbing the rate-payers of California,and robbing the stockholders of Enron, and robbing the pension fund of Enron: This was an act of war by Texas, the RedState castle, and a successful invasion and overthrow of the premier Blue-State, California, that thumb in the eye of Bush since 2000. It was like, you know, digging a tunnel under the cornerstone of the Blue Castle, while shoring it up like a mine with dry timber, lading it with kindling and larding in a 1000 lb. hog carcass for good measure, throwing in a torch, and sitting back waiting for Gray Davis's wall to collapse, then riding in at full tilt.

     Then follow with Tom DeLay's illegal takeover of the Texas statehouse, unheard-of off-decade Gerrymandering and ursurpation of 5 US House seats, which is about to come apart with the Abramoff scandal, and you've got constitutional problems closer to Aaron Burr.

     These are elements of highly cynical, highly calculated, tactical warfare of one state against another, and one cabal against the good faith of the entire nation, and indeed the world. High crimes worthy of a James Bond novel.

     The DeLay investigation and the Ken Lay trial need to hold this Texas coup in California up high as a major crime in its own right. The voices of truth need to be loud to bring this to pass in the coming months.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/31/2005 @ 09:28am

435. sorry, "usurpation". Haste makes waste —

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 12/31/2005 @ 09:31am

436. PP:

     Always appreciate your posts and responses as well.

     Onward...

     Posted by plunger at 12/31/2005 @ 10:54am

437. there is no reason Bush and Cheney could not be impeached at the same time, that goes for the entire cabinet I believe. members of congress cannot be impeached. that would still leave us with president Hastert, not a pleasant prospect, but his power would be greatly diminished. post imleachment the GOP would be toast

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/01/2006 @ 10:50pm

438. Again, the only House that will ever impeach Bush and Cheney is a Democratic controlled house. Therefore, if Bush and Cheney are impeached, It would be President Pelosi, the first woman to hold the office.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/02/2006 @ 6:41pm

439. BB, good point. I believe another three years with Bush is almost unimaginable, some are worried about civil war in Iraq, I worry about civil war here in the US, one more stolen election, I think Ohio was stolen, and the democracy is finished.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/02/2006 @ 7:18pm

440. "Therefore, if Bush and Cheney are impeached, It would be President Pelosi, the first woman to hold the office."

     Ooooh — a breath of Spring! Did somebody open a window?

     President Pelosi, with a Democratic House and Senate. Sweet dreams —

     But first we must take the Congress in '06, sine qua non, and should I say, overthrow Diebold before that can happen?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/02/2006 @ 7:32pm

441. "Iraqi Civil War? Some Experts Say It's Arrived"

     http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-civilwar1jan01,0,739 9089.story

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/02/2006 @ 7:38pm

442. C'mon, it's been a civil war in Iraq for some time, as well as the un-civil war of the US on the Iraqi population. look for the air war to escalate, then we don't have to pretend any more that we seek to minimize civilian casualties, everyone looks the same from 30,000 feet

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/02/2006 @ 9:45pm

443. Perhaps you can enlighten we ignorant evangelicals about how liberalism only denigrates the beliefs of Christians who believe that their Bible is the word of God? I don't recall you and your "progressive" compatriots here having equally negative attitudes to those who may be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or another faith?

     No you "enlightened progressives" only find Evangelical Christians those who must be singled out, ridiculed, and scorned for our faith. Educate me please on how your progressive beliefs lead you to that kind of discrimination?

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/27/2005 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person

     ll, evangelical christians are constantly trying to influence our government, just as are atheistic secular humanists. its a democracy, after all...

     but in that the beliefs of evangelical/fundamentalist, biblical literalists are, i would argue, contrary to "liberalism" by their very nature, no duh, eh? furthermore, u guys are extremely politically active and powerfully passive aggresive. u r experts at attempting to coercively proselytize your faith through all levels of government, then screaming bloody martyrdom when opposed by those who do not share your beliefs.

     why do some progressives or liberals or commies or whoever seem to think so lowly of those for whom you speak? well, how do u guys feel about "us"? u don't seem to have much respect for "us" either. take the "us" to mean liberals or anyone who is not a member of your faith, and do you unerstand now?

     people who fervently follow a belief system that postulates a single methodology for salvation and unimaginably dire consequences for disbelief have time and again proven a menace to those who do not share their beliefs, and the two world religions that most fit this description are christianity and islam. literalist interpretations of either of these faiths have resulted in the suffering and deaths of countless innocents throughout history, something our founding fathers were closer to in time and understanding.

     so, while i fervantly believe in your right to be wrong, i, as a member of the group known as anyone but you, would be abysmally stupid if i did not oppose you politically, intellectually. and although i try, in matters of people's faith, to avoid ridicule, it is difficult not to laugh a bit at the farcical hypocritical, passive aggressive medievalism of politically active evangelicals. i apologize, but i also know what you people think about me, and suspect it is worse...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/02/2006 @ 10:40pm

444. The Bush Bootlickers all seem to be in agreement that warrantless, illegal spying on Americans is acceptable, but only if a Republican president is doing it. In this case, Bush can spy on, arrest anyone and torture anyone with impunity and complete immunity from accountability to anyone, least of all the American people.

     If it was the other way around of course, a Democrat president who bombed Iraq, a broken country which was split in thirds by the U.S.-British No-Fly Zone and under harsh U.N. economic sanctions for twelve years, killed 30,000 of their citizens and put over 2,170 U.S. military in body bags, they would have been screaming for impeachment over two years ago. The truth is, the Iraq War was the biggest military blunder and the most ignorant decision ever made by any U.S. president in history.

     It was a military blunder for the simple reason that even the top U. S. Army general, Eric Shinseki, said we would need between 300,000 and 500,000 troops on the ground to secure the country and repel all the resistance. He was ignored by both Donald Rumsfeld and by Bush and his chief warmongers, Feith, Perle, Cheney and Wolfowitz, none of whom served one day wearing the uniform of the United States military, all of whom disdained military service to their country when it was their turn to step up to the plate and protect America's interests.

     It was a political blunder because of one man's ignorance, G. W. Bush, not only of Iraq and the Middle East, but of world history in general. His "Mission Accomplished" and his "Bullhorn Moments" are but little fantasies he hoped to burnish into his legacy of his self-perceived image as the "great war president." We must not forget when Bush said "War is on my mind" to Bob Woodward that war indeed is his elixir and his raison d'etre.

     True, Bush murdered all these people in order to put one madman, Saddam Hussein, in jail and said he'd do it all over again even if he knew the intelligence information was false. Now that's real intelligence and compassion, right? Kill innocent citizens based on lies about W.M.D. using false and manipulated intelligence information, abandon the war on terrorism in order to bask in his own self-aggrandizement and vainglory. Then turn around and tell Americans that he needs to spy on them and collect an enemy's list of his political opponents and then have the nerve to say he's protecting us. Only despots in totalitarian societies could possibly believe they could get away with something like this.

     Only the weak-minded, scared little Republican puppy dogs would so easily believe creating and spreading fear are enough to forfeit all their civil liberties as long as they think Bush is protecting them. How pathetic and totally spineless!

     But that's the biggest difference between the Republicans now in power. They loathe the U.S. Constitution and are hell-bent on destroying it while Democrats still believe that civil liberties and individual freedoms are inherent and protected inalienable rights as defined in the U.S. Constitution. For Republicans, spying on Americans without due cause or warrants from the U.S. Courts is just fine with them.

     How abhorrent and completely depraved the Republicans have become! Now, added to the enormity of the crime-ridden, corrupt Republican Party, they have their acolytes convinced that Americans should not be concerned about our freedoms since the little tyrant, G. W. Bush, has decided all on his own that those rights, like the Geneva Convention Accords that forbid cruel and inhumane treatment of others, are "quaint and obsolete."

     I often wondered just how far downward Republicans could spiral, but now I know they have yet to redefine the bottomless pit of Hell into which they continue to sink. The year 2006 will bring about their demise and their much deserved Waterloo.

     Posted by richard38 at 01/02/2006 @ 11:41pm

445. Be careful about pushing for impeachment. How does the title "President Cheney" strike you??

     Posted by Bernardt at 01/02/2006 @ 11:49pm

446. Enough with wishful thinking! Bush lost.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 01/03/2006 @ 12:13am

     It's nice that one of you guys finally admits it

     You know something Freiheit? There just might be hope for you

     Posted by Will C. at 01/03/2006 @ 12:17am

447. Frei

     With all due repsect, the Diebold "back door" is well known and poses the very real potential of votingchicanery. (There is an FBI site link on this issue on their computer security issues pages, but will take me a bit to re-find it.)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/03/2006 @ 12:59am

448. Alright, folks, longtime reader, new poster. No doubt my political affiliation will be taken from my screen name here, but let me just remind you that if you pre judge, that is prejudice in its ultimate form ha!

     just a note: as LISAJO (whose exact screen name i don't remember but we all know to whom I am referring) has reminded us, there are many, many Christians who do not fall into the LL and Rio pit. In fact, many of my Christian friends in the southern region in which I live are Republicans who oppose Bush (granted, belatedly, but do so now... ahem, we can't really complain... HILLARY) and disagree with his post 9/11 actions. Do not be disturbed by the little minds of LL, Rio, and the like. The fact of the matter is that, despite blog warfare, there really are intelligent ppl participating in the current dialogue and even Republicans do not believe in the anti-liberty front our current government has taken.

     The most important point is not Dem or Republican, lib, or conservative, but the Constitution and liberty for all true, loyal citizens.

     Posted by libliblib at 01/03/2006 @ 02:29am

449. And a reminder too, in that everyone is dicussing impeachment....

     What will impeachment accomplish? A new leader: Cheney.

     Yes, we've discussed this before, but seriously, impeachmen at this point is a moot point. We'll just put Cheney (who everyone seems to discount but is infinitely more intelligent and calculating than Bush Jr) into power, and as none of us want that...

     At this point, yes, we must face the facts. Anyone with a conscience has screwed up. Impeachment right now will only make that worse. We need to focus on the 2006 and 2008 elections and then deal with the current offenses. Otherwise, we'll just end up putting Dick "Yay for Toture" Cheney in office as president bc, honestly, an impeachment trial won't go further than to put another demogogue in office.

     And demogogues are always negative powers... doesn't matter if you're a Neo-Con or a Green Party. Demogogues kill democracy.

     Posted by libliblib at 01/03/2006 @ 02:40am

450. As much as the sight of "W" in prison orange would amuse me, I can say with no fear of contradiction that I have a better shot of being hired as the next host of "The Today Show" than Bush has of being impeached.

     Why? Well, I'll tell ya.

     1-It's a Republican controlled Congress. These clowns had to be forced to put together an anti-torture policy, something that makes common sense. What makes you think that they're going to take their boy to the woodshed for disobeying our Constitution?

     2-Even if there is an impeachment, how much time do you think it'll take Bush to get his newly packed Supreme Court to get it erased?

     and...

     3-We know the devil we've got. We need to be careful of the devil we'll get if Bush is impeached. Sure, he's a moron. He's seriously violated the Consitution. He's messed up the country so much that it'll take our children's children to repair it. But let's be honest here. Do we really want Dick Cheyney to have the keys to the car? Granted, he's unofficially driving anyway. But if Cheyney becomes the new president, things will get worse, I guarantee it. Who do you think gave "W" the idea to reinstitute COINTELPRO in the first place? (You know, you've gone too far when you start spying on Quakers!)

     Although Bush is doing the best Nixon impersonation I've seen since Dan Ackroyd on Saturday Night Live, his presidency won't end up the same way. Bush won't see the inside of an impeachment hearing because in the modern era, we don't impeach presidents for serious stuff like domestic spying and lying about war. We only impeach the president for getting head from someone other than his wife.

     Sorry! I couldn't resist.

     Posted by edwriter at 01/03/2006 @ 02:50am

451. 150+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns'

     Found in the Mainstream Media

     Last updated: 01/01/06 |

     http://www.geocities.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

     • January 2000 - CIA information about two alleged 9/11 hijackers in San Diego is squelched before reaching the FBI.

     September 2000 - Exactly one year before 9/11, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) advocates the build up of the U.S. military, but won't think it will happen unless the U.S. experiences a major catastrophic event such as a "new Pearl Harbor".

     October 24, 2000 - The Pentagon conducts the first of two emergency training exercises called MASCAL which is about a mock plane crash of a passenger aircraft into the Pentagon less than a year before 9/11.

     • December 18, 2000 - Bush says it would be a lot easier if the U.S. was a dictatorship and he was the dictator.

     • January 31, 2001 - A Treasury Department memo for Secretary Paul O'Neill contains a summary of a "military plan" for a "post-Saddam Iraq" marked secret.

     • March 4, 2001 - The Fox TV series 'The Lone Gunmen' airs their pilot episode which depicts a U.S. government conspiracy plot to crash a Boeing 727 into the WTC and blame it on foreign terrorists in order to gain support to increase their military's budget.

     April 2001 - NORAD planned to practice a scenario in which a terrorist group hijacks a plane and crashes it into the Pentagon, but it was rejected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as being too unrealistic.

     • April 2001 - The New York Port Authority granted a 99-year lease of the twin towers and four other buildings to Silverstein Properties (who already owns the WTC 7) making it the most expensive real estate transaction in New York history.

     May 4, 2001 - PNAC member Dov S. Zakheim, member and a co-author of PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses", is sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense who was a former vice president of System Planning Corp., a defense contractor which makes remote control and flight termination products. Dr. Dov S. Zakheim is a former political and economic adviser to the United States government. He is an ordained Orthodox Jewish rabbi...as well as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.-

     May 18, 2001 - The Denver Council on Foreign Relations (DCFR) discuss in their meeting about 'The Development of Homeland Defense' that Washington and New York are the "most likely targets" of a terrorist attack, the scenario of a hijacked plane crashing into a "high-value target", and mentions that the alleged WTC '93 bomber's original plan was to blow up one WTC tower to fall into the other WTC tower, thus "collapsing both".

     June 2001 - Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts three months before 9/11

     June 1, 2001 - Dept. of Defense (DOD) initiates new instructions for military assistance relating to aircraft hijackings , the first time since 1997, which states that for all non-immediate responses, assistance from the DOD must get approval from the Secretary of Defense.

     July 4, 2001 - Osama Bin Laden, wanted by the US government since 1998, undergoes medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates where he is met by a local CIA chief. September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.

     July 2001 - U.S. plans to invade Afghanistan for an attack on Osama bin Laden and the Taliban by October 2001

     July 2001 - U.S. and Italian officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations

     July 23, 2001 - Suspected Sept. 11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), receives a U.S. visa despite a 1996 indictment linking him with earlier terrorist plots

     August 2001 - Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks

     August 2001 - Former assistant director of the FBI and an expert on terrorism John O'Neill becomes chief of security at the WTC, but doesn't start until the day before 9/11

     August 2001 - The Taliban warns the U.S. of a huge attack from Osama bin Laden

     August 6, 2001 - In a CIA memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US", drafted the day before the anniversary of the Al Qaeda linked U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, George W. Bush is warned of possible terrorist attacks and plane hijackings in the U.S. from Osama bin Laden, but this revelation isn't made public until May 16, 2002.

     August 15, 2001 - A flight instructor warns the FBI about a student (who claims to be Zacarias Moussaoui)

     August 25, 2001 - Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto lands a pilot-less FedEx Boeing 727 six times at Holloman AFB, NM using a military GPS landing system that will enable ground control to take control of a hijacked airplane and force land it.

     September 3, 2001 - Salman Rushdie 'given US air ban week before terrorist attacks'

     September 3, 2001 "Salman Rushdie says US authorities banned him from taking internal flights a week before the terrorist attacks. He thinks officials were aware of an imminent terrorist strike.

     September 4, 2001 - The White House approves plans to invade Afghanistan

     September 4, 2001 - Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co., partially owned by the Israeli government, moves out of the 16th floor of the WTC

     September 5, 2001 - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asks the Senate to approve the DoD's 2002 budget request -- the largest defense spending increase since the mid 80's -- and talks about the importance of U.S. homeland defense, warns about the threats of terrorism and missile attacks, and later reports that he is confident that his budget request will pass

     September 6, 2001 - A two week heightened security alert at the WTC is lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs there were abruptly removed

     September 6, 2001 - Large number of "put" options are placed on United Airlines stock betting that the stock price would fall. Some of the put options placed on United Airlines stock were purchased through the investment banking firm of Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown in which the current Executive Director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, used to be the company's CEO up until 1998

     September 7, 2001 - Jeb Bush signs a two year Florida executive emergency order four days before 9/11

     September 9, 2001 - General Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, is assassinated by two Arabs posing as journalists and at some point after learning about General Massoud's assassination, California Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher (R) scheduled an appointment to meet with top White House officials in the National Security Council at 2:30 pm on Sept. 11th to warn them that "something big was about to happen"

     September 10, 2001 - A group of top Pentagon officials cancel their travel plans for the next morning because of security concerns

     September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warns of Iraq's pursuit of WMD's hours before US and British planes bomb Iraqi missile sites.

     September 10, 2001 - The wife of David Kovalcin, an engineer for Raytheon who would be on Flight 11, said her husband woke her up in the middle of the night complaining he couldn't sleep and that he seemed "very distressed" but she didn't know why and he would leave a note for his wife and two daughters Tuesday morning saying "I will miss everybody very much."

     September 10, 2001 - A group of top Pentagon officials cancel their travel plans for the next morning because of security concerns.

     September 10, 2001 - San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a travel warning eight hours before the attacks. It has been rumored that Condoleezza Rice gave Mayor Brown this warning

     September 10, 2001 - Large number of "put" options are placed on American Airlines stock betting that the stock price would fall

     September 10, 2001 - The Massachusetts Urban Search and Rescue Task Force -- one of the first teams deployed to the WTC -- arrives late in the evening and goes into action the following morning on 9/11

     September 10, 2001 - Osama Bin Laden reportedly undergoes kidney dialysis at a Pakistani military hospital in which a "secret team" replaces the regular urology staff

     September 10, 2001 - Pentagon medic Matt Rosenberg is on the phone with the FBI talking about who has command of the MASCAL emergency plane crash plan if a plane hits the Pentagon

     September 10, 2001 - The Washington Times publishes an article about an exercise study by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) about an enforcement plan for an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord in which the SAMS officers mention that the MOSSAD has the capability to "target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

     http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.html

     September 10, 2001 - Ex. CIA-director, former President, and President Bush's Dad, George H.W. Bush, meets with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers at a Carlyle business conference in Washington D.C

     Posted by plunger at 01/03/2006 @ 08:10am

452. 9/11 - NORAD was in day two of a week long exercise called "Vigilant Guardian" in which some of it's military participants thought the first reports of the hijackings later on in the day were "part of the exercise

     9/11 - Defense contractor, The Carlyle Group, is hosting a business conference in D.C. in which featured honored guest is one of Osama Bin Laden's brother

     9/11 - Workers at Israeli company get text warnings about attacks 2 hours prior

     9/11 - Five Raytheon employees are on three of the four hijacked planes

     9/11 - Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) and Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) -- the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees -- along with Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and some other members of the House Intelligence Committee are in a meeting at the Capital building with the director of Pakistani intelligence (ISI), Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, who authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to alleged lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta

     9/11 - FAA memo says Flight 11 passenger was shot who happened to be a multi-millionaire elite Israeli military commando who understands Arabic and who happened to be sitting directly in front of one of the alleged hijackers

     9/11 (8:44 am) - Donald Rumsfeld is in his office at the Pentagon talking about missile defense and the risk of terrorism and predicts there will be a terrorist attack two minutes before the first plane crashes into the WTC

     9/11 (9:00 am) - The CIA began an exercise to simulate a plane crashing into one of it's buildings

     9/11 - Ann Tatlock, a CEO at the South WTC Tower, is on her way to an early morning charity event at the U.S. Strategic Command Center at Offutt AFB in Nebraska -- where Bush later flew to for "safety" -- hosted by billionaire Warren Buffett and is escorted by military officers into an officer's lounge with a TV and watches the 2nd hijacked plane crash right into her offices

     9/11 - A New Jersey homemaker witnesses a group of young men on top of a white van celebrating while they were filming themselves with the burning WTC in the background in which they were later arrested and identified as Israeli citizens -- with some later found to be Israeli spies -- and they were found with large amounts of cash, a box cutter, multiple foreign passports, maps linking them to the blasts, and that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives in their van

     http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

     http://web.archive.org/web/20011108025936/http:/www.bergen.com/news/2bom bvan200109125.htm

     http://web.archive.org/web/20021003225412/http:/abcnews.go.com/sections/ 2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

     9/11 - When Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister of Israel, was asked what the 9/11 attacks meant for relations between the United States and Israel, he replied, "It's very good."

     9/11 - Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, said he decided that the smartest thing to do to the WTC 7 was to "pull it" when a NYFD commander told him that he wasn't sure they were going to be able to contain the fire in the building and said after they made the decision to "pull" the WTC 7, they "watched the building collapse". The term "pull" was used to describe the demolition of the WTC 6 days later

     9/11 - White House staff are given the powerful anthrax antibiotic Cipro, a full month before the first cases of anthrax were reported 9/11 - CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre reporting live from the Pentagon says that there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the building

     9/11 - Pentagon is hit right in the middle of only retrofitted section, important budget information located in the damaged area, attack came near the end of fiscal year, fatalities included civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts

     September 12, 2001 - Ben Fountain, who worked in the 47th floor of the south tower, says weeks before the attacks they had an "unusual" amount of evacuations from the WTC and says he thinks "they had an inkling something was going on.

     September 12, 2001 - Mohammed Atta allegedly calls his father

     September 12, 2001 - Before it was even clear who was behind the attacks, Donald Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism"

     September 16, 2001 - Osama Bin Laden releases a press statement denying he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks

     September 16, 2001 - President Bush says Osama Bin Laden is the "prime suspect

     September 20, 2001 - FBI Director Robert Mueller admits that some of the alleged 19 hijackers identities are in doubt as at least seven of them appear to be alive

     October 5, 2001 - Bob Stevens becomes the first person to die from the anthrax attacks who was a photo editor at American Media, Inc., the parent company who owns the National Enquirer which published a photo of Bush's daughter Jenna shown drunk with a cigarette in her hand falling on top of another girl

     October 11, 2001 - Two men from a moving company whom police described as Middle Eastern were detained by federal immigration authorities after being found with detailed video footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago. They were later determined to be Israeli Mossad Agents

     October 23, 2001 - Air Force General Richard Myers said the military has never thought of the scenario of terrorists hijacking planes and using them as missiles despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary

     October 26, 2001 - Only a month and a half after 9/11, the 342 page USA PATRIOT ACT is signed into law in which civil liberty groups say it violates the Constitution and fear it will endanger civil liberties

     November 10, 2001 - In a United Nations speech, Bush lashes out at conspiracy theories regarding the 9/11 attacks

     December 4, 2001 - In a speech in Florida, Bush claims he saw one of the planes crash into the WTC live on a TV in his holding room at Booker Elementary school right before he goes into a classroom for his scheduled reading with 2nd graders and thinks the crash was a horrible accident

     December 12, 2001 - FOX News: Israel Is Spying In And On The U.S.? Part 1 of 4

     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

     December 13, 2001 - The Pentagon releases a poor quality amateur video that was supposedly found in a house in Afghanistan that shows a husky looking Osama bragging about the 9/11 attacks and who is writing with his right hand in which the FBI says OBL is left-handed, wearing a gold ring -- and possible gold watch -- which are strictly forbidden in Islam, and the Bush Administration uses this video to confirm his guilt and vindicate US military action in Afghanistan

     March 23, 2004 - 9/11 Commission member referrers to the object heading towards the Pentagon on 9/11 as a "missile" when questioning Rumsfeld

     December 24, 2004 - In a speech, Donald Rumsfeld talks as if the plane that was said to have crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 was shot down

     Posted by plunger at 01/03/2006 @ 08:10am

453. It is so comforting that each time Bush makes a stumble people like Katrina vanden Heuvel and many others on this list drink something in the water and take leave of their senses. Now, of course, Bush is accused (before all of the evidence is presented) of having violated the constitution by those least able to make those judgements. When one reads scholars like Cass Sunstein or John Schmidt, it is clear that what Bush did was ordinary usual and customary and, almost with apodictic certainty, constitutional.

     It reminds us yet again why the denizens of this publication are not trusted with governing and are forever to be cast out of a role of leadership. They lack demeanor and knowledge and capability.

     Bravo, Katrina vanden Heuvel. Once again you remind us by your darkness what the sunlight is like! Self anointed anger is not a leadership quality.

     Posted by RichardK01 at 01/03/2006 @ 09:02am

454. Rich, nice word, apodectic, but in your usaege redundant, C-

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 10:27am

455. Frei, the situation in Ohio is far from clear. die Gedanken sind frei

     I have my opinion and you have done absolutely nothing to prove otherwise. I also believe that the 2000 election was stolen. if you like you are welcome to offer a rebuttal, complete with facts and citations. but that's not your way, is it?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 10:30am

456. libertyfliberty, , "but the Constitution and liberty for all true, loyal citizens."

     are you suggesting liberty is only for "loyal" citizens?

     I don't believe your being new here, I think you are libs suck or the many other nom de plumes

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 10:33am

457. Ed,:"Even if there is an impeachment, how much time do you think it'll take Bush to get his newly packed Supreme Court to get it erased?

     I don't believe the supreme court gets to decide on an impeachment, do you believe otherwise?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 10:35am

458. lib, Cheney can also be impeached, and he has it coming too. impeachment or not, what are we to do with this misadministration? and this rich boys club of a congress?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 10:36am

459. Frei,:"If it was the truth it would have been pursued.

     now who's doing the wishful thinking?

     keep telling yourself that everything is alright, but spare us.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 10:39am

460. I think getting it from all sides is the answer in allowing an impeachment possibility and it's happening. Military favorable poll number supporting the BC BS regime are going ‘down' steadily too. The crack in the shield is coming one drop at a time, then a flood.

     Murtha says he wouldn't join military now Tue Jan 3, 2006 9:00 AM ET

     WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rep. John Murtha, a key Democratic voice who favors pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, said in remarks airing on Monday that he would not join the U.S. military today.

     A decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, Murtha told ABC News' "Nightline" program that Iraq "absolutely" was a wrong war for President George W. Bush to have launched.

     "Would you join (the military) today?," he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.

     "No," replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party's leading spokesmen on military issues.

     "And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," the interviewer continued.

     "Exactly right," said Murtha, who drew White House ire in November after becoming the first ranking Democrat to push for a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as it could be done safely.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/03/2006 @ 10:50am

461. when the president breaks the law, he should be impeached. I think we can all agree on that. all of you who would wish to avoid that were the ones screaming the loudest during the Clinton administration..

     the law makes no exception that it was done to "protect" the country.

     given all that it is clear that impeachment is a political process rather than a judicial one. that's why the supreme court has no jurisdiction in this matter.

     if control of the House should switch, an electoral process, impeachment should proceed, the so called president has admitted breaking the law. had democrats controlled the house, Clinton would obviously not have been impeached.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 11:00am

462. Katrina, you are a MOONBAT!

     Posted by pbsssmith at 01/03/2006 @ 11:14am

463. smithy, what are you O'Reilly/ get lost you creep

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 11:33am

464. When is said and done I don't think the BC BS regime can pull the 'I did this to protect you card':

     http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/2003/NSA_Spied_on_U_N_Diplomats_in _Push_for_Invasion_of_Iraq

     And of course there are lots more.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/03/2006 @ 11:35am

465. The point is that if they can't rely on what they did know to protect us, the numerous warnings, hints, clues, they had about Al Queda prior to the September 11th attacks- if they can't be trusted to act upon what could be gotten through less obtrusive means- they sure as hell can't be trusted to act upon what can be acquired through a monitoring of emails and phone calls. Fuck those fuckers.

     Posted by Legba at 01/03/2006 @ 11:42am

466. in the interest of reaching out to the other side, allow me to ask a question. under what circumstances would you consider Bush to be impeached? any at all? high crimes and misdemeanors?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 11:45am

467. Legba-- exactly.

     Jo-- there are so many, but definitely the highest provable crimes. As in court, wouldn't the senate/rep's impaneled make a list and hold hearings and then vote on the ones that stuck?

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/03/2006 @ 11:51am

468. Fools, I was reaching out to the other side, I know how you feel about impeachment, consistently good posts from you, by the way

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 12:03pm

469. DELUSIONAL

     If I hadn't seen Katrina (the person, not the hurricane) on TV just before the last election predicting that Americans would "wake up" after a Kerry victory and all march to a progressive future, I wouldn't believe she would be babbling about impeachment just like a rank-and-file moonbat. She's apparently oblivious to the Rasmussen Reports poll that shows 64% of Americans (81% of Repubs, 51% of Dems, and 57% of independents) support the warrantless wiretaps. Presidents going back to FDR have claimed inherent authority for warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and the courts (including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) have backed them up. Jamie Gorelick has been extensively quoted in support of that claim, and another associate attorney general under Clinton has just written an article in support of that authority and the current eavesdropping. Both Carter and Clinton issued Executive Orders for such surveillance.

     Talk of impeaching Bush for taking a position that other presidents have taken is about what we'd expect from the people who shout that "BUSH LIED!!!" by his telling us the same thing that every other politician had told us about Saddam's WMDs going back years before Bush had any interest in the subject.

     Why do you think you're called moonbats?

     Varian

     Posted by Varian at 01/03/2006 @ 12:20pm

470. Varian, when it comes to constitutional matters and matters of law, polls are irrelevant, period. segregation had quite a lot of followers, as did slavery. 99% of citizens may favor an unconstitutional and/or criminal action, yet the law is clear.

     also calling people moonbats gets you ignored, so watch it

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 12:28pm

471. FORGOT

     I mentioned that 64% of Americans approve the warrantless searches, but forgot to mention that only 23% disapprove. That sounds like the same 23% that never supported the Iraq war and are probably still waiting for Dan Rather's TANG documents to be proven authentic. I just saw another interesting piece pointing out how liberals think the president lives in a "bubble," as if Nation readers don't.

     Varian

     Posted by Varian at 01/03/2006 @ 12:28pm

472. Johannesrolf:

     I didn't just cite polls, but referred to court decisions, administration positions, and executive orders as well to deal with the legal and constitutional standpoint. I cited the polls just to give you an idea of how unrealistic the impeachment talk is from a political standpoint.

     For a small minority that disagrees with a policy that the rest of the country feels is helping fight a war to think, despite all prior practice and legal precedent to the contrary, that a president is going to be impeached, is as I said, delusional.

     I tend to use the term moonbats to refer to those who have spent the last five years trying to reverse the outcome of two elections by supporting obstructionism and ankle-biting and unrealistically hoping for some impeachment or indictment against the Administration that they've demonized like a bunch of religious fanatics.

     Varian

     Posted by Varian at 01/03/2006 @ 12:37pm

473. Varian, Fdr has nothing to do with this matter. the pertinent law was passed in 1978. but you didn't mention that law did you. again the polls are irrelevant here. frightened people are always looking for the iron fist. but that fear needs to be fanned continuously lest it wear off.

     the posters on this site are self selected, you could make the same remarks about right wing sites, which is obvious;y would feel more comfortable with.

     tale a stand if you can to my above post, reaching out to the other site. perhaps then we can have a basis for discussion.

     your cosi fan tutti defense doesn't work, it's as if Clinton had claimed as defense that JFK was also shtupping interns

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 12:52pm

474. other side

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 12:53pm

475. Jo- thanks. As far as reaching out to the other side, those I'll assume being the 'real' moderate conservatives with a conscience and still conscious to boot. Well… seeing as they are already disturbed by the budget, the negligence and shear scope of incompetence/cronyism, their congressional leadership in criminal inquiries/indictments, and the lack of public support for the BC BS regime going into the '06 elections, I'd say publicly making the case that the BC BS'ers committed a crime in two obvious ways: illegal spying on US public and political enemies--not terrorists, and lying us/congress into war. I believe most repub's not already paid and bought coming into an election will try to distance themselves from the BC BS'ers and in so doing will either side with the moderate side of the dem's in pushing inquiries into impeachment forward or have to explain why they're ok with a criminal in office as long as it's their criminal. Ok, apart from the negative enticements, the positives could be: fairness, ‘real' secrets staying secret, we won't go after you about this during your (re) election, patriotism and the constitution, geese I don't know--how about awakening their belief in freedom?

     I'll need to ponder more on that one. Forgiveness is a hard one to deal with when they're still an ongoing obstacle to correcting the national direction that's heading for a full blown dictatorship.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/03/2006 @ 12:53pm

476. " ... it is clear that what Bush did was ordinary usual and customary and, almost with apodictic certainty, constitutional.

     Posted by RICHARDK01 01/03/2006 @ 09:02am

     Richard:

     Nice summation, but if you look at John Nichol's previous thread (Most Valuable Progressives in 2005), you will see that your argument has little weight - Bush has clearly violated the law, and has even admitted as much.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/03/2006 @ 12:55pm

477. Varian - I do not want to repeat myself, so you should also look at Nichols' previous thread - your talking points have been soundly refuted.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/03/2006 @ 12:57pm

478. IF this happens and IF that happnes, then oh boy, oh boy, he'll be impeached.

     Yeah, and if wishes were fishes, we'd all be swimming. Good luck everyone, the normal people of America will be watching the usual moonbat antics with amused contemplation.

     Posted by DennyK at 01/03/2006 @ 1:12pm

479. Varian

     Don't know where you get your numbers but per Zogby: 49% think Bush was within Constitutional limits and 45% said he went outside of his bounds. But to quote the view of CBS (reporting on this) :"By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans believe the government should take steps to prevent terrorism, but not at the expense of civil liberties. "

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/03/2006 @ 1:12pm

480. VARIAN, I checked out the Rasmussen Reports "poll" about warrantless wiretaps to see what their methodolgy was. None was mentioned. The benign-sounding usage "percent of respondents" did appear, however. The numbers you cite are meaningless. And your conclusion that "64% of Americans approve the warrantless searches" is, under the circumstances ... delusional. Americans don't like the thought of being spied on, in case you hadn't heard.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/03/2006 @ 1:13pm

481. To go along with Johanne's challenge to the righties here, I'd like to know where (or if) you draw a line regarding the power we've given this president in the "war on terror." How close to totalitarianism are you willing to get under the guise of protecting us from the terrorists?

     Posted by rain man at 01/03/2006 @ 1:21pm

482. Dennny,:" the normal people of America will be watching the usual moonbat antics with amused contemplation."

     tell us more about the normal people, which presumably includes you and excludes me and others here.

     are those the normal people who enjoy being dragged into a disastrous war on the basis of lies, who approve of torture and holding citizens on the basis of the so-called president's say so, who see their future economy wrecked by huge deficit spending.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 1:26pm

483. rain man that was my point exactly, so far no takers

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 1:27pm

484. Yeah, and if wishes were fishes, we'd all be swimming. Good luck everyone, the normal people of America will be watching the usual moonbat antics with amused contemplation.

     Posted by DENNYK 01/03/2006 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person

     Just like that time when the wingnuts impeached Clinton for getting a BJ in the Oval Office, shouting all the while "it's not about sex!!!!!"

     Normal people? Is that what wingnuts want to call themselves? Please. One could throw a blanket over all of the truly 'normal' people left in America now that The Cabal has had its way with us.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/03/2006 @ 1:30pm

485. JR - Funny thing is, Varian is not even correct about Clinton and Carter's executive orders.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/03/2006 @ 1:43pm

486. Jonanessrolf (and others):

     I didn't mention the FISA statute because no congressional legislation can limit or restrict the president's constitutional authority as CIC. I did mention the decision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the court that hears appeals under FISA, and which supports Bush's position.

     Your question-begging statements about violations of your "rights" indicate that you are ill-informed enough to believe that you have some constitutional right to be generally free of warrantless searches. Aside from the case of foreign intel, as opposed to evidentiary searches for criminal prosecutions, there are nearly 30 situations in which you or your premises may be searched without a warrant. Andrew McCarthy has a nice list in an article in National Review entitled, "Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking! Except when it happens every day."

     He concludes his list with:

     ["]These could conceivably be some of the things that the president is thinking about, though certainly not all. I neglected, after all, to mention the long-established "inherent authority" of the president to "conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information," recognized by federal appeals courts and assumed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in 2002.

     Where does this president get such crazy ideas? Obviously, he should be impeached.["]

     Posted by Varian at 01/03/2006 @ 1:45pm

487. Orwell is spinning in his grave:

     http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_376.shtml

     "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."

     --from Nineteen Eighty-Four

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/03/2006 @ 1:46pm

488. Johanne--So far no takers indeed. Although I'm sure the "I've got nothing to hide" crowd will be out to play shortly.

     The problem is that it's not hard to envision a scenario where innocent Americans who have nothing to hide are seriously threatened by abuse of absolute power in the name of security. How hard will it be in the coming new world of the Bush Reich for someone to turn in their neighbors for being terrorist sympathizers? We've seen from the renditioning operations that an exotic name and the wrong religion can land you in a torture cell, no verification necessary. And if they get the wrong person--oh well, shit happens.

     Posted by rain man at 01/03/2006 @ 1:52pm

489. "Your question-begging statements about violations of your "rights" indicate that you are ill-informed enough to believe that you have some constitutional right to be generally free of warrantless searches."

     Var (or is it Ian?)

     "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

     4th Amendment to the US Constitution

     Any questions?

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/03/2006 @ 1:53pm

490. The Rasmussen poll was a joke...totally biased - with totally skewed questions to obtain a "desired" result.

     Posted by plunger at 01/03/2006 @ 1:54pm

491. "because no congressional legislation can limit or restrict the president's constitutional authority as CIC."

     this is not true. may I remind every one again, the pres is commander in chief of the armed forces, he is NOT commander in chief of the nation. we have three coequal commander in chiefs in this country.

     no Sieg Heil, mein Führer, in this country yet.

     Hman, of course, their command of facts is suspect and they, like their leader lie

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 1:59pm

492. http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/1985/The_King_s_Red_Herring

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/03/2006 @ 2:10pm

493. Fascinating. This article claims Impeachment is gaining ground. The president would have to have commited "High Crimes and/or Misdemeanors". The very law he has supposedly broken: Section 1802 of the Forgien Intellegence Survallience Act-- "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order" Even if this is not enough, there are at least 4 rulings on the matter from the FISA court itself, and then there is precedent. This last bit will be hard to argue against. It's impossible to say spying on national enemies and their traitorous cohorts within America, is a high crime or misdomeanor when Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton have all done the same thing without public outcry. It's a dead end for any politician who attempts it, but it will be fun to see who in Washington thinks this is actually a smart career move. It would seem, after the debacle that was the Clinton Impeachment, DC would have no interest in faux impeachment trials.

     Posted by TennesseePaul at 01/03/2006 @ 2:21pm

494. Varian -

     Again, your arguments have already been discredited. Please read my posts on this subject from Nichols' previous thread. Will C. did a good legal analysis as well, so read his posts too.

     You are regurgitating talking points that are baseless. Your Clinton, FDR, and Clinton point; your reliance on the 2002 FISA appeals court decision. Both are baseless.

     If you are feeling lazy, I would be happy to cut-and-paste them for you, but it would be an awfully long post.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/03/2006 @ 2:24pm

495. So can you folks that have suddenly adopted the term "moonbat" tell me whether it was Rush, Sean or the GOP website that has sent you out with that moniker all of a sudden?

     Let me tell you it's brilliantly stinging....I'm currently in the process of reformulating my whole political ideology....to be more like yours....in order to avoid the hurt of this name!!!

     Just to review....many people here think that unwarranted domestic spying is an impeachable crime. Many other people think that because Rasmussen ran a poll saying Americans could care less and because there are other historical examples of similar criminal activity it's no biggie!

     Might I remind the RIGHTeous that President George Washington almost certainly fathered children with his female slaves....while in office. Does it matter? No. But when Bill Clinton gets a BJ and then lies about the BJ it is a big deal. In other words, norms of what is acceptable Presidential behaviour change, dramatically, over time. Lincoln, FDR's Constitutional stretching is not relevant today just as the sexual peccadillos of former Presidents was not relevant for Bill Clinton.

     Posted by colmes at 01/03/2006 @ 2:25pm

496. A Life, Wasted Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed

     By Paul E. Schroeder Tuesday, January 3, 2006; A17

     Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."

     Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.

     At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.

     "People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."

     The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR200601 0200974_pf.html

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/03/2006 @ 2:30pm

497. Arbie (RB, get it)

     "Love America, detest Bush, want to see his skinny Repuke ass dragged out of the White House in chains along with Darth and the rest of the Clone army" would be closer to the theme song I'd be singing.

     As for Dems speaking for Zar-coward, that's just hyperbolic gibberish you've been coached to say by those to whom you have indentured yourself. Don't let yourself be a lackey to their nonsense, you are better than that, man.

     If you want to take pot shots at a US political party doing the work of AQ, how 'bout taking a closer look at - rather than apologizing for the umpteenth time for - the Repukes, who've done a far, far better job of recruiting for the Osama Been Forgotten than he could've imagined in his wildest, lusty virgin-filled, post-martyrdom, jihadist wet dream.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/03/2006 @ 2:32pm

498. Rove = 1/3 part Martin Bormann + 2/3 part Josef Goebbels.

     Posted by cousinbrucie at 01/03/2006 @ 2:34pm

499. Rove = 1/3 part Martin Bormann + 2/3 part Josef Goebbels.

     Posted by cousinbrucie at 01/03/2006 @ 2:35pm

500. Sung to the tune of Release Me.

     Please impeach him make him go I voted no in 2004 he lives to lie and that's a sin so impeach him and let us vote again.

     Take that Mr. Trillin.

     Posted by audiojoebob at 01/03/2006 @ 2:47pm

501. The Administration also wanted to change the phrase "the purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information" to "a significant purpose of the surveillance…." This qualifying word could open the door to all manner of other "purposes" for surveillance. When the Court of Review judges tried to get the Justice Department officials to clarify what other purposes there might be besides suspicion of terrorism or espionage, Olson and Baker were evasive. Exasperated, Judge Lawrence Silberman said, "I'll try one more time and then I'll give up." Olson complained that the judges were asking "very, very difficult questions" and, in the end, Silberman never got his answer.

     At one point in the proceedings, Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr. found "a touch of irony" in the fact that after the Patriot Act had expanded the government's power of surveillance and after the FISC had gone 24 years without an appeal, suddenly, for the first time, the government was complaining about being restrained by the court. Nonetheless, on November 18, 2002, the Court of Review sided with the Bush Administration.

     Yet despite this victory, and despite having the expanded powers of the Patriot Act, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were not satisfied with the extent of their power and they began clashing with the FISC. In 2003 and 2004, the court denied four of the Bush Administration's applications, forced them to withdraw three and modified 173. In the 24 years prior to 2003, the court had voiced objections to a grand total of six applications.

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallechinsky/what-is-the-bush-admini st_b_13144.html

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/03/2006 @ 2:51pm

502. Joebob, wonderful, wonderful

     did you know that song was cowritten by Roger Miller, a vastly underrated american singer songwriter, perhaps best known for "dang me" or perhaps "king of the road" but my personal favorite might be "you can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd", though Bush might try to convince you he can

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/03/2006 @ 2:57pm

503. TENNESSEEPAUL:

     The very law he has supposedly broken: Section 1802 of the Forgien Intellegence Survallience Act-- "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order" Even if this is not enough, ...

     Actually, Paul, your partial (and selective) quote of Section 1802 is not enough. If you had bothered to read the rest, you would plainly see that what Bush is doing is not consistent.

     Section 1802 (your misleading quote in italics):

     "(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that -

     (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -

     (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

     (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusi