From sos_usa courtesy of scottopic

Bush vetoes torture bill.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.
( the rest of the article... )

Yea.... there are basically no words.
Remember when this country used to be something to be proud of? Yea me neither.

RIP America.

A Blurry Line Between Propaganda and News
By Khody Akhavi
Inter Press Service
Friday 27 July 2007

Washington - A shocking thing happens midway through Norman Solomon's documentary film "War Made Easy". While analysing the George W. Bush administration's lead-up to the Iraq invasion, Solomon plays a news clip of Eason Jordan, a CNN News chief executive who, in an interview with CNN, boasts of the network's cadre of professional "military experts". In fact, CNN's retired military generals turned war analysts were so good, Eason said, that they had all been vetted and approved by the U.S. government.

"I went to the Pentagon myself several times before the war started and met with important people," he said. "We got a big thumbs up on all of [the generals]."

In a country revered for its freedom of speech and unfettered press, Eason's comments would infuriate any veteran reporter who upholds the most basic and important tenet of the journalistic profession: independence.

But the relationship between the press and government in the U.S. during times of war is changing. In Solomon's film, it is just one example of the collusion between the government and the mainstream news media.

"War Made Easy", which is narrated by Hollywood actor and peace activist Sean Penn, begins as an anti-war film that decries the Bush administration's interventionist rationale and misinformation campaigns during the post-9/11 era. Through a montage of video clips from cable news networks, presidential statements, and historical footage from previous U.S. military interventions, it compares the propaganda techniques of the past with the present, and draws striking parallels.

Richard Nixon's "Vietnamisation" rhetoric, which expanded the Vietnam War instead of ending it, sounds very similar to President Bush's declaration that "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

The first half-hour of this 73-minute documentary spends too much time explaining to the audience much of what it probably already knows. But it redeems itself by delving into the insidious tactics used by the Bush administration in managing a war of choice, and how the mainstream media colluded with the U.S. government to boost the war effort.

"Rarely if ever does a war just fall down from the sky. The foundation needs to be laid, and the case is built, often with deception," says Solomon during an interview in the film.

"War Made Easy" was produced and directed by Loretta Alper and Jeremy Earp for the Media Education Foundation, a non-profit that distributes educational programming "to reflect critically on the media industry and the content it produces," according to organisation's website. Its board of advisors includes prominent left-wing academics such as Noam Chomsky and Cornell West.

Six years after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, the U.S. news media's tepid performance during the build-up to the war has been exposed and criticised by the very establishment that was supposed to hold political officials' "feet to the fire," as the journalistic proverb goes.

In one interview clip from the Jon Stewart comedy show, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer shrugs and says, "We should have been more sceptical," drawing a puzzled look from Stewart.

"War Made Easy" does not dispute the idea that the press is self-correcting, is willing to investigate its own reporting lapses (as the New York Times did after the Judith Miller WMD scandal), and issue apologies and retractions. But it warns against the ostensible collusion between press and government. In Solomon's view, the U.S. mainstream news media is cast as part and parcel of the Bush administration's war apparatus, an echo chamber that packages, builds support for, and, through the vehicle of "leaked misinformation," sells the war to the U.S. public.

For example, in the lead-up to "Operation Iraqi Freedom," CNN chairman Walter Isaacson sent a memo to his anchors and reporters asking them to "remind viewers why they are watching the war." As video of the clean-up at Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan rolls across the screen, one can't help but thinking about Sep. 11.

Solomon also labours over the parallels between U.S. government propaganda and how the rhetoric is now filtered into a more sophisticated media campaign, yet for all intents and purposes, fulfills the same goal. In short, it is more insidious than ever.

In one scene, he describes how a Hollywood set designer was hired to build a news set (with polished backdrop and sleek high-definition televisions) for the public relations arm of the U.S. military during the Iraq war. Presentations by military commanders and officials resemble news broadcasts. There is no discussion of the facts, and what the government says is accepted without question.

None of these revelations are exactly new, but the historical parallels between Vietnam and the Iraq war are becoming increasingly clear as the U.S. remains for a fifth year in Iraq. "War Made Easy" offers a timely criticism of the media, and portends an ominous future for the U.S. news viewing public should they sit back and accept without question the pronouncements of political leaders and evening news anchors.

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
May 18, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”

The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.

But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.

She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.

As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”

The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.

“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”

The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”

The directive itself

A rare entry that isn't a news article. As a general rule I am not a fan of rap music but this song, like any good political rap song, is one of the few i really like, and I think it works well for this journal's theme.

"Mosh" - Eminem

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the Republic for which it stands
One nation under God
Indivisible with liberty and justice for all...
It feels so good to be back..

I scrutinize every word, memorize every line
I spit it once, refuel, re-energize and rewind
I give sight to the blind, my insight through the mind
I exercise my right to express when I feel it's time
It's just all in your mind, what you interpret it as
I say to fight, you take it as I'mma whip someone's ass
If you don't understand, don't even bother to ask
A father who has grown up with a fatherless past
Who has blown up now to rap phenomenon that has
Or at least shows no difficulty multi-task
And in juggling both perhaps mastered his craft
Slash entrepreneur who has helped launch a few more rap acts
Who's had a few obstacles thrown his way through the last half
Of his career typical manure moving past that
Mr. kisses ass crack, he's a class act
Rubber band man, yea he just snaps back

[Chorus:]
Come along follow me as I lead through the darkness
As I provide just enough spark that we need to proceed
Carry on, give me hope, give me strength
Come with me and I won't steer you wrong
Put your faith and your trust as I guide us through the fog
To the light at the end of the tunnel
We gonna fight, we gonna charge, we gonna stomp, we gonna march
Through the swamp, we gonna mosh through the marsh
Take us right through the doors (c'mon)

All the people up top on the side and the middle
Come together lets all bomb and swamp just a little
Just let it gradually build from the front to the back
All you can see is a sea of people some white and some black
Don't matter what color, all that matters we gathered together
To celebrate for the same cause don't matter the weather
If it rains let it rain, yea the wetter the better
They ain't gonna stop us they can't, we stronger now more than ever
They tell us no we say yea, they tell us stop we say go
Rebel with a rebel yell, raise hell we gonna let em know
Stomp, push, shove, mush, Fuck Bush, until they bring our troops home (c'mon)

[Chorus]

Imagine it pouring, it's raining down on us
Mosh pits outside the oval office
Someone's tryina tell us something,
Maybe this is God just sayin' we're responsible
For this monster, this coward,
That we have empowered
This is Bin Laden, look at his head noddin'
How could we allow something like this without pumping our fists
Now this is our final hour
Let me be the voice in your strength and your choice
Let me simplify the rhyme just to amplify the noise
Try to amplify the times it, and multiply by six...
Teen million people, Are equal at this high pitch
Maybe we can reach alqueda through my speech
Let the president answer a higher anarchy
Strap him with an Ak-47, let him go, fight his own war
Let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our own soil
No more psychological warfare, to trick us to thinking that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country, we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes its all lies
The stars and stripes, they've been swiped, washed out and wiped
And replaced with his own face, Mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you know why,
Cause I told you to fight.

[Chorus]

And as we proceed,
To Mosh through this desert storm,
In these closing statements, if they should argue
Let us beg to differ
As we set aside our differences
And assemble our own army
To disarm this Weapon of Mass Destruction
That we call our President, for the present
And Mosh for the future of our next generation
To speak and be heard
Mr. President, Mr. Senator
Do you guy's hear us...hear us...[laughing] (Hailie)

One of the postcard secrets posted on Postsecret for this week. I find it speaks for itself.
Sometimes, a picture IS worth a thousand words.



(In case you're unaware, Postsecret is an art project where people send secrets anonymously to the site and some are selected for the site or books, this was one I found would be good for this site)).

UNDER SURVEILLANCE
The End of Illegal Domestic Spying? Don't Count on It
By Joe W. Pitts | 03/15/2007

Americans of all persuasions were shocked by the revelations, first reported in the New York Times in December of 2005, that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop secretly for years on the calls and e-mails of American citizens, bypassing the warrants required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment. The administration's decision, in January, to subject the NSA program to review by the special FISA court, supposedly ending the controversial warrantless surveillance, was reported as a stunning and welcome reversal.

Yet the surveillance program isn't the only thing now "warranted"; so is skepticism about the administration's change of heart. The superficial change-back to FISA control merely masks more deeply hidden examples of secrecy and deception in the concerted attack on American constitutional values. Whether manifest in the Scooter Libby verdict, the recent scandalous disclosures that National Security Letters (NSLs) have been deceptively and illegally used by the FBI to spy on unsuspecting Americans, or in these NSA programs, this attack on our constitutional core demands a vigorous response.

FISA VERSUS TSP—The administration has defended the NSA's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and its accompanying executive power-grab—like so many other radical moves—by reference to 9/11. The president and his advisers see the "long war on terror" as requiring a "new paradigm" free from traditional legal constraints. Justice Department lawyers have prepared memos—some still classified—rationalizing extraordinary and unprecedented claims that the president as commander-in-chief during this war could even, acting on his own wishes alone, ignore direct prohibitions in existing laws.
( more )

(Stolen from animalivebecome).

It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts.
Here are the facts about the three candidates. Who would you vote for?

Candidate A- Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologist.
He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a
day.

Candidate B- He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in
college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C- He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an
occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?
Decide first... no peeking, then scroll down for the response.



Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.


And Finally, can you imagine working for a company that has a little more
than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year...

Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet?

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to
keep the rest of us in line.

(Interesting stuff, no?)

-Nothing

There over 600 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States.

Fema Concentration camps for American citizens

I did some research on the "so called" furnaces and the white AGA Gas Inc. Cylinder. The "so called" furnaces are exhaust fans. AGA GAS Inc. Sells mostly asphyxiation type gases...you can verify this by doing a search via Google for AGA GAS Inc. and then look for web site MDS and they will list the gases.

In the video it shows a gas main, you can see there are 2 or 3 connections with regulators on top. Regulators are used to regulate pressure and gas mixtures. It seems that this is indeed a death camp, for those on the red and blue list. It can process 26,000 people every 24hrs. The site has since been cleaned up to look inconspicuous.

Beech Grove Indiana FEMA Camp - April 5 2006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Ut-t7k_zY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbulletin%2Emyspace%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ecfm%3Ffuseaction%3Dbulletin%2Eread%26messageID%3D3118385950%26Mytoken%3DC02EFC0F%2DF8F1%2D4BAA%2D867

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency was created by President Carter in 1979. Upon its establishment, FEMA operated under the veneer of a government agency dedicated to swift response in the event of disasters. These disasters could include hurricanes, floods, terrorist attacks, or as we saw in 2003, the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster.

On March 1, 2003, FEMA became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This may seem as though it would make sense considering FEMA's supposed responsibility in aiding those victimized by disaster (terrorist, or otherwise), but consider the martial law-like powers FEMA possesses via Executive Orders:
· Executive Order 10995 provides for the takeover of the communications media
· Executive Order 10997 provides for the takeover of all electric, power, petroleum, gas, fuels, and minerals
· Executive Order 10998 provides for the takeover of food resources and farms
· Executive Order 10999 provides for the takeover of all modes of transportation
· Executive Order 11000 provides for governmental takeover of all health, education, and welfare functions
· Executive Order 11001 provides for the mobilization of all civilians into work brigades under Government supervision
· Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General of the US Postal service to operate a national registration of all persons
· Executive Order 11003 provides the takeover of airports and aircrafts
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm
http://informationinquest.com/fema.html

( the rest )

US troops in Iraq want out
March 20, 2007

For US troops from 9th Cavalry Regiment bumping around the dangerous streets of Baghdad in Humvees after dark on Monday, news that their deployment in Iraq could be extended fell like a hammer blow.
Their commanders had cautioned that their second one-year tour due to end in October could be prolonged while US President George W. Bush later warned troops it was too soon to "pack up and go home."

The expletives during the four-hour night patrol turned the air in the Humvee, already thick with cigarette smoke, a dark shade of blue.
"We just want to get out of here as soon as possible," said one vehicle commander in one of his few printable comments.
"It's because the Iraqi army is so scared that we have to come here to die," he added, asking not to be named.
"Ninety-five percent of Iraqis are good but five percent are bad. But the 95 percent are too weak to stand up to the five percent."
"Bush should send all the Death Row prisoners here and they can be killed fighting the terrorists. We've had enough," said another soldier, as the Humvee accelerated past a roadside car in case it exploded.
Added yet another, "Bush can come fight here. He can take my 1,000 dollars a month and I'll go home."

Commander of the night operation, Lieutenant Brian Long, said the anger was understandable.
"One of the men has five children, another has three. Another has a boy aged four -- he's missed two of those years. He'll never get them back," said Long.
"It is like the movie 'Groundhog Day'. Each day is the same and nothing ever changes," he added, referring to the 1993 movie in which the principal character is doomed to repeat the same day endlessly.
"It's tough. Everyone just wants to get home to their families," said the officer.

Bush, after speaking to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the top US military commander in Iraq, said in Washington that his new plan to pacify war-wracked Iraq would take months.
"It could be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home," Bush said, four years to the day after he announced that American troops were fighting to depose Saddam Hussein.
"That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating," Bush said, warning that a US departure would spark chaos in Iraq which would engulf the region.
Platoon commander of the 9th Cavalry Regiment, Captain Christopher Dawson, said he understood the need for troops to stay in Iraq.
"We are starting to make a difference," he said. "The violence is dropping. We are training Iraqis to take over responsibility for their own security. We are helping them see their future ahead of them. It is in their hands."

But the lower ranks were in rebellious mood, especially after publication of a poll on Monday, commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today, which showed only 18 percent of those questioned had confidence in US and coalition troops, while 78 percent opposed their presence.
"If no one wants us here we are quite ready to get out tomorrow," said the outspoken vehicle commander.

One of the few Iraqis the troops met during their night patrol -- most stay indoors once the 8pm curfew kicks in -- said he feared the day the US forces pulled out.
"They can stay for 100 years if they want," said Salam Ahmed, a security guard at a shoe warehouse on the outskirts of the city. "If they go, the bad guys will certainly come for me."

Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President
By Neil Mackay

15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

-refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

-describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

-reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

-says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

-spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

-calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

-hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

-and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

(Thank you nirvanajunkie19 for the link & quote).

Scholars For 9/11 Truth & Justice
This is the new home for a restructured scholars group that welcomes scholars and all persons interested in exposing the truths of the 9/11/01 attack. Care is being taken to present the strongest, most credible research available, some of which is published on our sister site, the Journal for 9/11 Studies. For more information visit our Welcome page.
----

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

The Stolen Election of 2004
Published on Friday, March 2, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
by Michael Parenti

The 2004 presidential contest between Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry and the Republican incumbent, President Bush Jr., amounted to another stolen election. This has been well documented by such investigators as Rep. John Conyers, Mark Crispin Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, Bev Harris, and others. Here is an overview of what they have reported, along with observations of my own.

Some 105 million citizens voted in 2000, but in 2004 the turnout climbed to at least 122 million. Pre-election surveys indicated that among the record 16.8 million new voters Kerry was a heavy favorite, a fact that went largely unreported by the press. In addition, there were about two million progressives who had voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 who switched to Kerry in 2004.

Yet the official 2004 tallies showed Bush with 62 million votes, about 11.6 million more than he got in 2000. Meanwhile Kerry showed only eight million more votes than Gore received in 2000. To have achieved his remarkable 2004 tally, Bush would needed to have kept all his 50.4 million from 2000, plus a majority of the new voters, plus a large share of the very liberal Nader defectors.

Nothing in the campaign and in the opinion polls suggest such a mass crossover. The numbers simply do not add up.

In key states like Ohio, the Democrats achieved immense success at registering new voters, outdoing the Republicans by as much as five to one. Moreover the Democratic party was unusually united around its candidate—or certainly against the incumbent president. In contrast, prominent elements within the GOP displayed open disaffection, publicly voicing serious misgivings about the Bush administration’s huge budget deficits, reckless foreign policy, theocratic tendencies, and threats to individual liberties.
( The rest... )

Military Statistics

-The military spends 14,000 per recruit (Washington Post, september 2005)

-$100 per month (non-refundable) deposit for first year in the military (Rand 2000) must be paid before any benefits can be recieved under the GI bill.

-16% of enlistees that complete 4 years in the military recieve benefits under the GI bill (Rand 2000).

-While tuition for college increased 65% from 1985 to 1999, the maximum award under the GI bill increased by only 16% (Rand 2000)

-You'll lose your college money if you don't use it within 10 years of leaving the military.

-75% of blacks and 67% of Latinos reported racially offensive behavior (Veterans Administrations 2000).

-1/3 of the people in the armed forces are colored while only 16.9% of officers are people of color (Department of Defense Almanacs 2001).

-90% of women in the military reported sexual harassment (Department of Defense 1996).

-1/3 of women in the military get raped (Murdoch & Nichols 1995).

-1/5 of women in the military reported not recieving a raise because of failure to provide sexual favors (Murdoch & Nichols 1995).

-1,231 gay discharges in 2000 (Department of Defense 2000).

-871 incudents of anti gay harassment in 2000 (Serviceman's Legal Defense Network 2000).

-421,000 vets unemployed currently (Department of Labor).

-72% of vets who applied for benefits said their claims were judged unfairly (Veterans Administration 2000).

-1/3 of the adult homeless population served in the armed forces (Department of Veterans Affairs 2001).

-Over 6.6 billion of financial aid was unused from the private sector each year (CCCO).

-Average federal financial aid from Pell Grants is 20% more than the GI Bill (Rand 2000).

This War on Terrorism is Bogus

The following is a British Member of Parliament’s take on U. S. President George Bush and his
administration’s attempt to manipulate the events of 9-11-2001 in an effort to create justification
for his incursions into Afghanistan, and Iraq (and other dominoes to come). It is presented as a
pretext for waging his Oil Wars and/or Bush Wars.

For the sake of credibility, it should be noted that the author, Michael Meacher MP, was British
Environment Minister from May 1997 to June 2003, Much of the information discussed herein is
completely available in the public domain, but Mr. Meacher does an excellent job of putting every-
thing into context, and in a relatively confined space.

This War on Terrorism is Bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
( the rest.... )

Went to the protest today and snapped 43 pictures, enjoy.

( Pictures of the protest... )

Anti-War Groups Plan Surge on Washington
By Aaron Glantz
Inter Press Service
Wednesday 24 January 2007

San Francisco - Peace activists from around the United States will converge on Washington Saturday for what organisers hope will be the largest demonstration to date against the Iraq war.

"We expect a turnout in the six figures," said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic congressman who now runs the group Win Without War, which is organising the march along with True Majority, Working Assets, the RainbowPUSH Coalition, the National Organisation for Women and the national umbrella group United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ).

UFPJ's Leslie Cagan told IPS that the level of energy in the Anti-War movement has spiked since the November election, when voters ended Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

"The voters of this country figured out that they could use the November elections as a vehicle to voice their opposition to the war," Cagan said. "What happened there was that the voters gave Congress a mandate to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home."

That success at the polls gave Anti-War citizens more optimism that a large demonstration might make an impact, she said.

In mid-November, United for Peace and Justice called a demonstration for the nation's capital for Jan. 27, with other large mobilisations planned for Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco.
( the rest... )

So who is going with me? I'll be there all day, if you're interested in meeding me at the metro station, let me know, anyone who CAN make it to D, SHIULD be there. No excuses.

Bloggers Who Criticize Government May Face Prison
Bill would allow rounding up and imprisoning of non-registered political writers

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, January 18, 2007

You'd be forgiven for thinking that it was some new restriction on free speech in Communist China. But it isn't. The U.S. Government wants to force bloggers and online grassroots activists to register and regularly report their activities to Congress in the latest astounding attack on the internet and the First Amendment.

Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, a website dedicated to fighting efforts to silence grassroots movements, states:

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself."

In other words Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may redefine the meaning of lobbying in order that political communications to and even between citizens falls under the same legislation.

Under current law any 'lobbyist" who 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report." quarterly to the government faces criminal charges including a possible jail term of up to one year.

The amendment is currently on hold.
( Read more... )

What does it Mean to be a Politically Active Citizen if No One is Listening?
by Paige Doughty

Over the last five years it has come to my attention that I do not live in a "democracy." That in fact, I have no idea what living in democracy might mean. A comment made to me during a recent conversation with a member of the press has exacerbated and confirmed this feeling on the most basic level.
"I live in D.C and I see at least one protest everyday. Protesting is not effective anymore. I hardly even blink when I see one on my way to work."

I bit my tongue to stop myself from responding, "Well, perhaps this is the problem."

In the year leading up to the current war in Iraq. I was living in Australia. There, I and hundreds of thousands of other people took to the streets in protest of the building momentum towards war. Similar protests took place around the world. Later that same evening as I was watching the news a rolling headline flew past my eyes on the bottom of the screen, with the words, "Thousands protest U.S. entrance into Iraq around the world, but media does not cover." The protests were under reported, but the major corporate television station I was watching did manage to include a meager headline reporting that they were not reporting thousands of people protesting. A month later the war began.
( more... )

These are taken from the graphic text called Addicted To War; Why America Can't Kick Militarism", an illustrated expose by Joel Andreas. You can purchase the comic for $10 at Addictedtowar.com, or contact Frank Dorrel (frankdorrel@addictedtowar.com.

Previously copied:
Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3

( Chapter 4: The War On Terrorism )

(will be continued in chapter 4)

Administration Leaving Out Important Details on Iraq
By Mark Seibel
McClatchy Newspapers

Sunday 14 January 2007

Washington - President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq.

President Bush unveiled the new version on Wednesday during his nationally televised speech announcing his new Iraq policy.

"When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation," he said. "We thought that these elections would bring Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

"But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains Iraqis had made. Al-Qaida terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's election posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.

"They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate," Bush said. "Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today."

That version of events helps to justify Bush's "new way forward" in Iraq, in which U.S. forces will largely target Sunni insurgents and leave it to Iraq's U.S.-backed Shiite government to - perhaps - disarm its allies in Shiite militias and death squads.
( the rest... )

These are taken from the graphic text called Addicted To War; Why America Can't Kick Militarism", an illustrated expose by Joel Andreas. You can purchase the comic for $10 at Addictedtowar.com, or contact Frank Dorrel (frankdorrel@addictedtowar.com.

Previously copied:
Chapter 1, Chapter 2

( Chapter 3: The New World Order )

(will be continued in chapter 4)

These are taken from the graphic text called Addicted To War; Why America Can't Kick Militarism", an illustrated expose by Joel Andreas. You can purchase the comic for $10 at Addictedtowar.com, or contact Frank Dorrel (frankdorrel@addictedtowar.com.

Previously copied:
Chapter 1

( Chapter 2; The ColdWar and the Exploits of pf the Self-Proclaimed World Policemen )

(will be continued in chapter 3)

These are taken from the graphic text called Addicted To War; Why America Can't Kick Militarism", an illustrated expose by Joel Andreas. You can purchase the comic for $10 at Addictedtowar.com, or contact Frank Dorrel (frankdorrel@addictedtowar.com.

Introduction-
For the 2004 fiscal year 51% of the taxes you pay go to military spending. 49% go to everything else (including educational spending which was a 7%, that's why your school needs to have bakesales to raise money). The united states maintains the largest and most powerful military in history. US warships dominate the oceans, its missiles and bombers can strike targets on every continent and hundreds of thousands of US troops are stationed overseas. Every few years, the US sends soldiers, warships, and warplanes to fight in distant countries. Many countries go to war but the US is unique in both the size and power of its military and its prosperity to use it.

The costs of being a military superpower and waging wars around the world are high. Because hundreds of billions of dollars are funneled to the Pentagon every year, the government skimps on providing for the basic needs of people here at home. Cut backs in social programs have caused far more devastation in this country than any foreigh army ever has.

But the cost of foreign wars are more than simply economic. They include the lives of soldiers who never come home. Foreign wars also bring bloody retaliation against the US- such as the terrorist attacks that took the thousands of lives at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Despite the high cost in money and lives the governmentseems determined to keep going to war, putting us all in harm's way.

200 years ago the United States was a collection of 13 small colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America. Today it dominates the globe in a way that even the most powerful of past empires could not have imagined. But the path to world power has not been peaceful...

( Chapter one )

(...will be continued in Chapter 2)

Saddam's Well-Timed Execution
by Robert Parry | Jan 10 2007 - 9:09am

President George W. Bush and his supporters are sure to cite the tape recording as further evidence of Hussein’s guilt and thus vindication of Bush’s decision to press ahead with Hussein’s controversial hanging on Dec. 30.

But the troubling reality – virtually ignored in the major U.S. news media – is that Bush also silenced a particularly dangerous witness who could have implicated prominent U.S. officials from both his father’s and his own administrations.

The hasty execution prevented the Iraqi judges from turning to Hussein after the tape was played on Jan. 8 to question him about its authenticity and its context. Another obvious follow-up would have been how had Hussein obtained the dangerous chemicals that he allegedly deployed to kill tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds.
( the rest... )

Published on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 by OneWorld US
On Guantanamo Prison Camp's Fifth Birthday, New Pressure to Shut It Down
by Aaron Glantz

An international delegation arrived in Cuba this week to call for the closure of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. The protest is part of the January 11 International Day to Shut Down Guantanamo, during which many groups in the United States and abroad are expected to rally thousands of human rights activists.


Detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area at Camp X-Ray at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2003. A total of 30 incidents of detainee mistreatment were reported by agents of the FBI in an internal 2004 poll on possible abuse witnessed at the US Navy prison facility at Guantanamo, Cuba. Photo:Shane T. McCoy/AFP

January 11 is the 5-year anniversary of the first prisoners being sent to the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

"From the beginning this was a prison that was set up without any kind of due process," Medea Benjamin of the women-for-peace group Code Pink told OneWorld from Havana. "People in prison have no access to see their family members. It took a long time for them to even have lawyers and those lawyers don't even have access to their clients."

"Most of them have no charges against them, and none of them have had a fair trial," Benjamin added.

The 12-person delegation organized by Code Pink also includes U.S. "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan whose son was killed in the war in Iraq; Adele Welty whose firefighter son was killed on 9/11; retired U.S. colonel and diplomat Ann Wright who resigned over the invasion of Iraq; and legal director of the U.S. Center for Constitutional Rights Bill Goodman who has taken the cases of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. Supreme Court.
( the rest... )

Published on Sunday, January 7, 2007 by the New York Times
The Imperial Presidency
Editorial

Observing President Bush in action lately, we have to wonder if he actually watched the election returns in November, or if he was just rerunning the 2002 vote on his TiVo.

That year, the White House used the fear of terrorism to scare American voters into cementing the Republican domination of Congress. Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney then embarked on an expansion of presidential power chilling both in its sweep and in the damage it did to the constitutional system of checks and balances.

In 2006, the voters sent Mr. Bush a powerful message that it was time to rein in his imperial ambitions. But we have yet to see any sign that Mr. Bush understands that — or even realizes that the Democrats are now in control of the Congress. Indeed, he seems to have interpreted his party’s drubbing as a mandate to keep pursuing his fantasy of victory in Iraq and to press ahead undaunted with his assault on civil liberties and the judicial system. Just before the Christmas break, the Justice Department served notice to Senator Patrick Leahy — the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee — that it intended to keep stonewalling Congressional inquiries into Mr. Bush’s inhumane and unconstitutional treatment of prisoners taken in anti-terrorist campaigns. It refused to hand over two documents, including one in which Mr. Bush authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to establish secret prisons beyond the reach of American law or international treaties. The other set forth the interrogation methods authorized in these prisons — which we now know ranged from abuse to outright torture.

Also last month, Mr. Bush issued another of his infamous “presidential signing statements,” which he has used scores of times to make clear he does not intend to respect the requirements of a particular law — in this case a little-noticed Postal Service bill. The statement suggested that Mr. Bush does not believe the government must obtain a court order before opening Americans’ first-class mail. It said the administration had the right to “conduct searches in exigent circumstances,” which include not only protecting lives, but also unspecified “foreign intelligence collection.”
( the rest of the article )