Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Two Months Later, Better Than Never, New York Times Covers White House Memo | AfterDowningStreet.org
"We began making noise about the White House Memo almost two months ago. I don't know if the NY Times finally got mad at Bush blatantly lying or if their lawyers finally gave them the OK to publish without fear of being Dan Rathered, but for one reason or another, two months after citizens began clamoring for coverage, The New York Times has written about the White House Memo and recognized it as evidence that Bush was lying when he recently claimed he had wanted to avoid war (though, of course, the New York Times can't print the word 'lying' and the word 'President' in the same article).
Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says
By DON VAN NATTA Jr., New York Times
Not news, of course. As Andrea Mitchell said, anybody who didn't know that the president was intent on going to war no matter what had to be deaf, dumb and blind.
The news (as sadly is so often the case) is that it's being covered by the mainstream ("liberal"????) press.
This, however, is rather startling:
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
. . . . . . . .
Friday, March 10, 2006
The Iran "crisis"
The number of reporters/pundits calling for -- or acknowledging the strong possibility of -- a military strike against Iran increases by the day. Many are now openly saying that we might have to bomb them, if they do not bow down to us.
And the pinko liberal wishy-washy mamby-pamby soft-on-defense weak-on-security commy socailist America-hating pussy Democrats, whose primary goal is to give aid and comfort to The Enemy? . . . Well, Hillary Clinton sounds basically like Bush. And I have yet to hear anyone in Congress pointing out the complete and utter hypcrisy and lunacy of the Bush Crime Family's policy/behavior in regards to Iran. (If you have, please provide the links.)
An excellent, excellent interview on DemocracyNow:
Former Labour MP Tony Benn on how Britain Secretly Helped Israel Build Its Nuclear Arsenal
Someone please, PLEASE explain to me:
1.) how the U.S. and Britain are not in violation of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)
2.) how it is acceptable for India, Pakistan, and Israel to possess nukes, but not Iran
3.) why it's O.K. for the U.S. to HELP India with their civilian nuclear energy program, while in the same breath demanding that Iran NOT seek nuclear energy
There is no evidence that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons (only fears and speculation). There is a strong prima facie argument for this -- if you were the leader of Iran right now, what would YOU do? (Be honest.) When you are constantly being overtly threatened, and both overtly and covertly provoked (with foreign military jets illegally flying in your airspace, presumably so that they can detect the locations of your radars and so forth, or so that you might even shoot down one of the planes thereby providing the casus belli for an attack in "response" or "defense"); when you have been singled out, along with two other nations, by the world's only super power as a member of an "Axis Of Evil," after which said super power proceeded to bomb, invade and occupy one of the members of this "Axis"; and following this, this super power threatens you and makes hypocritical demands on you day after day after day . . .
Clearly possession of nuclear weapons is the only possible deterrent to an attack by the United States.
According the doctrine of "Preemption" -- aka the "Bush Doctrine" -- Iran has every right to attack/bomb/invade/occupy the United States right this moment.
Sounds like a good "National Security Strategy," no?
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Molly Ivins: Enough of the D.C. Dems | The Progressive
By Molly Ivins
March 2006 Issue
Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.
I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.
Look at their reaction to this Abramoff scandal. They’re talking about “a lobby reform package.” We don’t need a lobby reform package, you dimwits, we need full public financing of campaigns, and every single one of you who spends half your time whoring after special interest contributions knows it. The Abramoff scandal is a once in a lifetime gift—a perfect lesson on what’s wrong with the system being laid out for people to see. Run with it, don’t mess around with little patches, and fix the system.
As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:
1) Iraq is making terrorism worse; it’s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.
2) Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.
3) Single-payer health insurance.
Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers.
Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief.
This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.
Who are these idiots talking about Warner of Virginia? Being anodyne is not sufficient qualification for being President. And if there’s nobody in Washington and we can’t find a Democratic governor, let’s run Bill Moyers, or Oprah, or some university president with ethics and charisma.
What happens now is not up to the has-beens in Washington who run this party. It is up to us. So let’s get off our butts and start building a progressive movement that can block the nomination of Hillary Clinton or any other candidate who supposedly has “all the money sewed up.”
I am tired of having the party nomination decided before the first primary vote is cast, tired of having the party beholden to the same old Establishment money.
We can raise our own money on the Internet, and we know it. Howard Dean raised $42 million, largely on the web, with a late start when he was running for President, and that ain’t chicken feed. If we double it, it gives us the lock on the nomination. So let’s go find a good candidate early and organize the shit out of our side.
Molly Ivins writes in this space every month. Her latest book is “Who Let the Dogs In?”
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
welcome to hell, keep your hands inside the windows.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
this just in: w. lies