We're Doomed

-end-

Comments

Rice Robustly Wrong

After a softball gushing suckup propaganda piece "interview" conducted by Friend-Of-Bush Katie Whoreick, Rice must have felt pretty good. Couric the ever-faithful tool accomplished her mission, portraying a softer gentler Condoleezza Rice in a neat little prerecorded interview. The rest of the MSM has allowed Rice's lies during that interview to remain unchallenged. Media Matters, excellent analysis:Couric fails to challenge "scary smart," " 'girly' and fun" Rice on a host of issues.
Couric with Rice Katie Couric Profiles America's Secretary Of State
Condoleezza Rice has been at the president?s side in defending the war in Iraq and the war on terror and she is not just towing the line. As Katie Couric reports, Condi Rice is a true believer.
This is a totally insincere and useless "profile":Condi likes to listen to U2 while she exercises and she can play the piano. She's a "true believer" in war, torture and whatever else the neothugs believe in. Katie didn't probe what that means. This was a puff piece par excellence. Katie Couric, always a tool, has earned her neocredentials well.
Reinventing Condoleezza
"Nobody can go back and reinvent the past," Condoleezza Rice told Katie Couric on "60 Minutes" Sunday night. But this nugget of truth came amid a flood of retrospective reinvention in which Rice equated the war in Iraq with the civil-rights struggle of the 1960s — and left me wondering whether I was hearing polished sophistry or a case of total denial.
That's all this misadministration does with facts, REINVENTS them as new lies. Condi's "beliefs" got tougher to defend after Bill Clinton spoke on Faux Gnus. Rice gave an interview to the New York Post, owned by News Corp. which also owns the Fox News Channel after Clinton's appearance on Fox. (Link below)
~~~
FLATLY FALSE? Condi says Clinton's statements were "flatly false" but the facts prove otherwise:

-"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years."
Not true, WaPo documentation here.

-"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false — and I think the 9/11 commission understood that."
Robustly Wrong. "Think" it's true to your detriment, Condi. The Commission understood no such thing. 9/11 Commission Hearings (PDF)

-"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."
Condi you're a blatant LIAR! Richard Clarke clearly documents it in his book, "Against All Enemies" and talks about it on 60 Minutes.
~~~

Time Magazine documented it in 2002 in a tidy nutshell. Perhaps Condosleezza Rice should read it and see how she lied. They're a bunch of LIARS and war profiteers.


George W. Bush meets with senior staff in a daily briefing at his ranch in Aug. 2001

Transcript Interview, New York Post Editorial Board/Condoleezza Rice
...
QUESTION: By now I assume you’ve seen Bill Clinton’s performances. How do you respond to his specific accusation that the eight months before 9/11 the Bush Administration, in his words, didn’t even try to go after al-Qaida?

SECRETARY RICE: I’d just say read the 9/11 report. We went through this. We went through this argument. The fact of the matter is I think the 9/11 Commission got it about right. Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11. I would be the first to say that because, you know, we didn’t fight the war on terror in the way that we’re fighting it now. We just weren’t organized as a country either domestically or as a leader internationally.

But what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton Administration did in the preceding years. In fact, it is not true that Richard Clarke was fired. Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened and he left when he did not become Deputy Director of Homeland Security some several months later. We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida. For instance, big pieces were missing, like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren’t going to get Afghanistan. And there were reasons that nobody could think of actually going in and taking out the Taliban, either the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration, because it’s true you couldn’t get basing rights in Uzbekistan and that was the long pole in the tent.

So I would make the divide September 11, 2001 when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way. But the notion that somehow for eight months the Bush Administration sat there and didn’t do that is just flatly false. And you know, I think that the 9/11 Commission understood that.

QUESTION: So you’re saying Bill Clinton is a liar?

SECRETARY RICE: No, I’m just saying that, look, there was a lot of passion in that interview and I’m not going to – I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 Commission report on the efforts of the Bush Administration in the eight months, things like working to get an armed Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from Pakistan and from the Central Asians, but essentially continuing the strategy that had been left to us by the Clinton Administration, including with the same counterterrorism czar who was Richard Clarke. But I think this is not a very fruitful discussion because we’ve been through it; the 9/11 Commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said.
...
QUESTION: Is Castro dead?

SECRETARY RICE: I don’t think so.

QUESTION: Is Bin Laden dead?

SECRETARY RICE: I don’t know.

QUESTION: Is Francisco Franco dead? (Laugher.)

SECRETARY RICE: We could go down the list. Right.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Thank you very much.

(rest at link)

Comments

Unsustainable Wars

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, right; retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, center; and retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes
Photo:Mark Wilson -- Getty Images

The Republican Congressional Majority has refused to hold any oversight hearings on the Iraq war to date, so Democrats, chaired by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) of the Democratic Policy Committee held one yesterday. Republican Senator, Trent Lott (R-MO) has threatened to punish them. "They better stop this. This will be the last one or there will be retribution" said Trent.

Three retired generals and one retired colonel called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.
WaPo Three Retired Officers Demand Rumsfeld's Resignation
In testimony before the Democratic Policy Committee today, retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 and served as a senior military assistant to former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, charged that Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration "did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq."

He told the committee, "If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents."

Joining his call for Rumsfeld to resign were retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who was responsible for training Iraq's military and police in 2003 and 2004, and retired Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes, who served in Iraq in 2004 and helped establish bases for the reconstituted Iraqi armed forces.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Byron Dorgan talk before the start of Monday’s Democratic Policy Committee hearing on oversight of the Iraq War.Photo by Bill Clark/Roll Call

Who's playing politics with the lives of our troops? Who's refusing to ask for oversight of the wars currently being fought by our troops? Which party is trying to get answers that WE want? And which party is stalling until after the upcoming elections to ward off further bad news, even if it kills more troops?
Lott and other Republicans are upset that Democrats have gone outside the committee process to highlight the Iraq war before the November election.“They’re abusing the system,” Lott said. They're not. They're legally entitled under Senate Rules to meet in the Dirksen building...but they'll meet outside Congress if the Republicans force them out.

"Republicans support the war but don't support the troops.Democrats support the troops but don't support the war."-Randi Rhodes, September 26, 2006

This isn't the first time high ranking military officers have tried to support the troops, obtain necessary equipment and point out the flawed "leadership" offered by the Bush Administration via Rumsfeld.
over--->

In April these generals and others came forward to ask for Rumsfeld's resignation but Bush supported Rumsfeld
Several retired military commanders, including one (Batiste) who turned down a promotion to lieutenant general to leave the Army, have recently made statements urging Rumsfeld’s ouster.


April Interview-Batiste Video from Crooks and Liars

Another link...RawStory
Several retired military commanders spoke out against Rumsfeld in April

Comments

CNN's Moos Mocks Clinton

Jeanne Moos usually does those frivolous little segments to humor-up the news for CNN. The sort of "human interest" pieces that fluff and smooth, silly news segments as filler or to soften a harder news story. She makes news into less substantive events. So, it was surprising to see Moos covering the important ambush of Bill Clinton by the smirking Chris Wallace and the fact-laden information on Bin Laden. She has one of those distinctive "amusing" voices better suited to "news" about people doing wacky things or making bloopers, not casually discussing the most wanted terrorist in the world.

CNN correspondent Moos carved out a niche in broadcast journalism with her off-beat, thoughtful reporting on the quirkier aspects of life in the 1990s. In her reports, entitled "Making the MOOSt of It," which debuted in 1995, Moos has examined subjects ranging from the uncanny characteristics of automobile air fresheners to the pains of pantyhose runs.

Moos says of her career: "I'm kind of a creative writer, and the quirky material allows you to be more creative. I've come to hate doing the hard-news story. Now I do stories about the life of a traffic cone, odd stuff like that."

So, Jeanne's creative "take" on the Clinton/Wallace interview is out of place and insulting to our intelligence.She questions people on the street, asking if they thought Clinton was acting, (yes, they're ALL acting, said one man) and did they remember the "last time Clinton wagged his finger"...the interviewees didn't but Jeanne was happy to remind them and show a clip of Clinton denying he had sexual relations with that woman. What a disgusting low blow from CNN and Moos. What the hell did that have to do with Clinton setting the lying record straight about Bin Laden? Marginalization. Clinton was "The one doing the HITTING", Moos said of the time Clinton tapped on Wallace's clipboard. Hitting? Then she aired clips of right wing talk radio personnel ridiculing Clinton, some man I've never seen before doing a poor impersonation of Clinton calling people Holmes, and making a mockery of the incident. Clinton seemed to "boil" she said, but whittled it down to Clinton's socks, "No one told him to pull up his socks" and giving "anchors" Heidi Collins and Tony Harris a chance to further discuss the color of Clinton's "alabaster skin". Move over Fox, CNN wants to join you in the cesspool. The Marginalizing Media.

Related Posts:
Olbermann/Clinton /Wallace
and
Think Progress:Transcript Clinton/Wallace

Moos Transcript --->

CNN

COLLINS: Political blogs buzzing today about President Clinton's finger-jabbing interview with FOX News.

Here now, CNN's Jeanne Moos.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Technically, Bill Clinton's page never actually got purple, but he did seem to boil.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Took off the gloves.

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: The kind of smack down with FOX News.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. He looked like he was going to kick some (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

MOOS: At least they never had to bleep the former president.

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You did FOX's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.

MOOS: But it was Bill Clinton doing the hitting, or at least the jabbing at FOX's Chris Wallace.

CLINTON: I want to know how many people of the Bush administration you asked this question of.

MOOS: it was the talk of the tube from YouTube to Imus.

DON IMUS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Could have been in a barn.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chris Wallace should have smacked him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If Chris had any (EXPLETIVE DELETED), he would have said just keep your hands to yourself there powder puff.

MOOS: And it was all because Chris Wallace questioned whether Bill Clinton had done enough to get Osama bin Laden.

CLINTON: No. Because I didn't get him.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Right.

CLINTON: But I tried. That's the difference in me and some.

MOOS (on camera): Did you think he was acting or really mad?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh no, I think he was mad and I think he was justified.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bill Clinton, of course he's acting. They're all actors.

MOOS (voice-over): It didn't take long for comedians to act.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: FOX is saying my response was calculated. Well, who do you think you're dealing with Holmes? I'm the pope of charisma. I've got 70 I.Q. points on Chris Wallace.

MOOS: And then there was the smirk factor.

CLINTON: And you've got that little smirk on your face, you think you're so clever.

MOOS: Chris Wallace's own colleagues on FOX kidded him about the smirk.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just don't smirk. Stop your smirking, buddy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well Wallace, you're unflappable. Good job.

MOOS: And Wallace himself noted, "the president said I had a smirk. Actually, it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing."

In addition to finger jabbing, there was finger wagging.

CLINTON: They ridicule me for trying.

MOOS (on camera): I want to take you back to the last time Bill Clinton famously wagged his finger. Remember that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: no.

CLINTON: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, right, right.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Which is not all he was wagging.

MOOS (voice-over): And as if all that wagging wasn't enough, writer Nora Ephron blogged on the "Huffington Post." "What surprised me most about the Clinton meltdown was that no one told him to pull up his socks."

She's right. Look at all that exposed skin for an interviewer to get under.

Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: You've got to love Jeanne Moos.

HARRIS: Wow. A little alabaster skin there, huh? That's not a good look.

Sorry. Sorry, Heidi.

COLLINS: You could see more of Jeanne Moos' unique perspective weekdays -- you threw me off.

HARRIS: Sorry.

COLLINS: In "THE SITUATION ROOM." That's coming up today, and Monday through Friday, always, 4:00 p.m. Eastern, again at prime time, 7:00 Eastern.

HARRIS: Clogging in Kentucky. That's a segue for you, huh? And homeland security dollars. The link? Well, a powerful figure on Capitol Hill.

That story in the NEWSROOM.

You're watching CNN, the most trusted name in news.

Comments

Olbermann Hits Another Home Run

Morrow's Mantle, as I've said before, has been passed to Keith Olbermann. The tubes have been abuzz all weekend over Chris Wallace's sleazy attempted hitjob on Bill Clinton.(Think Progress...FULL TRANSCRIPT: Clinton Takes On Fox News) Needless to say, Clinton came out of it brilliantly while Chris slithered back into his FoxHole for props and reinforcements. The wait to see what Keith Olbermann would have to say on the topic is over. He did America proud. He told the truth, scathingly. Countdown

~~
Crooks and Liars has the Special Comment video here
~~
Thank you, Keith...beautifully and passionately said. It made me cry. There's hope yet for America as long as there are journalists willing to take the risk and speak out against the madness. Mainstream media, the gauntlet has been thrown down...who else is brave enough to pick it up?

Transcript from MSNBC

MSNBC video link
(Hat Tip:Duncan)

--->Text below fold

A textbook definition of cowardice
Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
Updated: 7:28 p.m. MT Sept 25, 2006

The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.

It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

It is not important that the current President’s portable public chorus has described his predecessor’s tone as “crazed.”

Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration

whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation’s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit.

Nonetheless. The headline is this:

Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.

He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.

"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration did not try.

Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest “pass” for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!

President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs—some of them, 17 years old—before Pearl Harbor.

President Hoover was correctly blamed for—if not the Great Depression itself—then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.

Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War—though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.

But not this president.

To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.

That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive.

But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.

Except for this.

After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts—that he was president on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.

Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.

Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.

Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is—not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.

The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.

It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired—but a propagandist, promoted:

Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.

And don’t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for “e-mailing” you the question.

Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.

He told the great truth untold about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden.

He was brave.

Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.

The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.

Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11." Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush’s new and improved history.

The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.

The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.

Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?

That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."

Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.

Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general—echoed Coats.

Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.

And of course, were it true Clinton had been “distracted” by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?

Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?

Who corrupted the political media?

Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?

Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, “All Monica All The Time”?

Who distracted whom?

This is, of course, where—as is inevitable—Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.

The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.

But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.

The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.

Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.

Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since—a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.

We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.

And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles wrong.

Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:

You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.

Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.

To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.

That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book “1984.”

The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...

"Power is not a means; it is an end.

"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power… is power."

Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union address from 1862.

"We must disenthrall ourselves."

Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence.

He might well have.

"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."

And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.

The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.

You did not act to prevent 9/11.

We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.

You have failed us—then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.

You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.

And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.

And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.

And there it is, Mr. Bush:

Are yours the actions of a true American?

YES!!!!!

Comments

Right For Life

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito holds a street sign bearing his name in Hamilton, N.J., Friday, Sept.. 22, 2006. Alito, a native of Hamilton was given the sign after a street in the town was named for him. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)
-end-

Comments

Where's Binny?

Is Bin Laden Dead?
Saudia Arabia says they have no evidence at all that Osama is dead. Jacques Chirac has no comment The regional French newspaper l’Est Republicain printed a copy of a confidential document from the DGSE intelligence service yesterday, citing an uncorroborated report from a “usually reliable source” who said Saudi secret services were convinced that bin Laden had died.
Did Bin Laden die of typhoid? Or, did somebody in France leak Karl Rove's October Surprise diversion a few weeks early? Whether he's dead or alive, the Bush administration which wanted him desperately after 9/11, has NOT found him. And they don't seem to care about him unless there's a pending election. Bush said, Bin Laden is "not a top priority".
Cheney seemed to know where Osama was in 2001 but made plans to attack Iraq instead. Osama bin Laden is also still in Afghanistan.
RUSSERT: Up in Tora Bora?
CHENEY: In that general area.


Where is Bin Laden?
More pics--->

Osama is only used as a pawn in their game of world domination. The Official Story Falls Apart
RumsfeldBin Laden Harder to Find
































Who will find Osama Bin Laden first? Rover?

Comments

Poppy Eyes Balls

Get off Irish soil, spawner of devils! Póg mo thóin, Poppy! Celts worldwide should protest #41's presence in Ireland. Former U.S. president George Bush watches play on the 11th hole during the fourball golf match at the Ryder Cup tournament at The K Club in County Kildare, Ireland, September 22, 2006. REUTERS/Brian Snyder (IRELAND)

This sports illustrated perspective is hilarious and provincial. American golfers complaining that they're being treated badly because they're Americans? I blame Bush...they don't. Aren't there any Liberal golfers?
Edge of chaos-Ryder Cup
In the last couple of days, one theme has emerged in the Ryder Cup coverage: the character of the U.S. players and their wives.The Irish Times kicked off the Ugly American campaign early in the week with a provocative story -- written, interestingly, by an American, Bruce Selcraig -- that said, among other things, "many Euros and other international players are put off by the overwhelming number of American PGA Tour players who identify themselves as George Bush-loving Republicans who support the U.S. occupation of Iraq."

The story went on to add,"...


the American pro golf world, which has been heavily influenced by corporate America and Republican politics for at least 30 years, now has such a strong element of Christian fundamentalists that the entire Ryder Cup leadership -- Tom Lehman, Corey Pavin and Loren Roberts -- are all self-professed born-again Christians."

So there it is: If worldwide golf fans didn't already have reasons to root against the U.S., now we're all a bunch of intolerant, war-mongering Jesus freaks. This idea has seeped into other aspects of the British press coverage, which seems of a piece with Tony Blair's ouster and this week's nastiness at the United Nations.

Comments

Torture Rules!

McCain, Warner and Graham have covered Bush's lying torturing ass. Torture Okay Although the media is reporting this as Bush conceding, the "dissident" Senators who gave him the cover he needs to continue torturing in the future, and no threat of prosecution for torture of the past. They will stand trial for war crimes along with the Bush Torture Administration. Cowards! If for one moment they think they have earned gratitude or even a little log rolling, they are sadly, and as usual, mistaken. The Bush White House sees them as tools and saps.

Torture Worse in Iraq than under Saddam Hussein. Those who ask if we're better off now with Saddam out of power need to ask the Iraqi people. Those to whom purple fingers, "Freedom and Democracy" have been given, might beg to differ.
The abuse can continue Senators won't authorize torture, but they won't prevent it, either. Disgusting. Bush can interpret torture as he pleases, (this is a "man" who used to blow up frogs for pleasure) and the CIA is exempt retroactively from punishment for most crimes committed in violation of the Geneva Convention. Bush and his men are WAR CRIMINALS trying to get the law behind them so they can get off the hook during their war crimes trials. Wake up, America. McCain, Warner and Graham just helped war criminals...they're now equally guilty.
McCain...have you NO shame?!

Hey, it's all legal, folks; pictures from Abu Ghraib

Less than an hour after the photo op weak and useless "deal" was made, Bush and pals squirmed out of it.
Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, briefed reporters yesterday evening. He said that while the White House wants to honor this deal, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, still wants to permit secret evidence and should certainly have his say. To accept this spin requires believing that Mr. Hunter, who railroaded Mr. Bush’s original bill through his committee, is going to take any action not blessed by the White House.

On other issues, the three rebel senators achieved only modest improvements on the White House’s original positions. They wanted to bar evidence obtained through coercion. Now, they have agreed to allow it if a judge finds it reliable (which coerced evidence hardly can be) and relevant to guilt or innocence. The way coercion is measured in the bill, even those protections would not apply to the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

The deal does next to nothing to stop the president from reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions.

And they wonder why we're skeptical? Torturing people is NOT okay. NOT IN MY NAME! Why does Bush want free reign to torture? (Apart from the fact that he enjoys it, from frogs to humans.)Because American dissidents are next on his agenda...detention without charges, holding without a lawyer, as long as no vital organs are overtly "hurt" no lawsuit for whatever is done to an enemy of the state. Cruel and unusual punishment? No longer an issue. They can do what they want to any one of us, ANY TIME they like. They like us terrified and silent.
--->

GENEVA - Torture in
Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Thursday.
Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, made the remarks as he was presenting a report on detainee conditions at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay as well as to brief the U.N. Human Rights Council, the global body's top rights watchdog, on torture worldwide.

Reports from Iraq indicate that torture "is totally out of hand," he said. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein."

Nowak added, "That means something, because the torture methods applied under Saddam Hussein were the worst you could imagine."

Some allegations of torture were undoubtedly credible, with government forces among the perpetrators, he said, citing "very serious allegations of torture within the official Iraqi detention centers."

"You have terrorist groups, you have the military, you have police, you have these militias. There are so many people who are actually abducted, seriously tortured and finally killed," Nowak told reporters at the U.N.'s European headquarters.

"It's not just torture by the government. There are much more brutal methods of torture you'll find by private militias," he said.

A report by the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq's Human Rights office cited worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honor killings" of women.

Iraq's government, set up in 2006, is "currently facing a generalized breakdown of law and order which presents a serious challenge to the institutions of Iraq" such as police and security forces and the legal system, the U.N. report said, noting that torture was a major concern.

Nowak has yet to make an official visit to Iraq and said such a mission would be unfeasible as long as the security situation there remains perilous. He based his comments on interviews with people during a visit to Amman, Jordan, and other sources.

"You find these bodies with very heavy and very serious torture marks," he said. "Many of these allegations, I have no doubt that they are credible."

According to the U.N. report, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the U.N. report said Wednesday.

It attributed many of the deaths to rising sectarian tensions that have pushed Iraq toward civil war.
...

Comments

Maryland Senate Race-Dirty Tactics

Michael Steele
A radio ad in Maryland has all the earmarks of being of a Rovesque smashmouth political hatchet job. This closely watched senate race is purportedly a Toss-Up. Republican Michael S. Steele is black, Democrat Ben Cardin is white.
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) and Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D) Photo: Mark Gail Steele's Ad Lacks Substance
In his campaign for the U.S. Senate, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele has launched a new TV ad that has Democrats complaining.Critics said the commercial puts style over substance, fails to discuss the issues, hides Steele's ties to President George W. Bush's administration and tries to blur party lines. In Maryland, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin.

Steele claims not to have heard the ad. But, he said, "I think Republicans have allowed Democrats to control the debate on political opportunity for African Americans. . . . It's about time the Republicans speak to their real place in history . . . and to debunk the myths."

Black Republicans run racially tinged radio ad in Md.
It was not immediately clear on which stations the 60-second ad was airing or how long it had been running, although a news release on the group's Web site dated two weeks ago announced its release. The Washington Post reported for a story in Thursday's editions that the ad was running on Baltimore stations.

Controversial ad draws criticism.
NBRA chairwoman Francis (sic) Rice tells WJZ's Brown the ads are designed to "set the record straight." "We are trying to enlighten African-Americans about their political history so that they can know that they have a choice," says Rice.
NBRA
Our Mission: Returning black Americans to their Republican Party roots.


The offending Radio Ad Audio
--->
Text below fold


Two women, voices A and B, Text:

Voice A:Dr. King was a real man
Voice B:You KNOW he was a Republican
A:Dr. King? A Republican?
B:Democrats passed those black codes and Jim Crow laws, Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan
A:White hoods and sheets?
B:Democrats fought all civil rights legislation from the 1860s to the 1960s, Democrats released those vicious dogs and fire hoses on blacks
A:Seriously?
B:And the Dixiecrats? Remained democrats and vowed to vote for a yellow dog before a Republican. Republicans freed us from slavery and put our right to vote in the Constitution
A:What?
B:Republicans started the NAACP affirmative action and the HBCUs
A:Sounds like Democrats have bamboozled blacks
B:Democrats blocked the minimum wage passed by Republicans and over 200 billion dollars have been spent on education health care and job training since president Bush took office
A:So Democrats want to keep us poor while voting only Democrat
B:Democrats want us to accept same sex marriages, teen abortions without a parent's consent, and suing the boy scouts for saying god in their pledge
A:See, we need to think and vote on our own values
B:Exactly. Democrats have talked the talk but the Republicans have walked the walk
A:Girl, it's time for us to...
A and B: Do the walk
(laughter)
B:You know it, girl.

Black Officials Support Cardin
Steele is pressing for an investigation into a former staffer, fired by Cardin, who reportedly blogged about Cardin's campaign and referred to Steele as an "Oreo". The staffer contended that Cardin's campaing was hyper sensitive over race issues.

Moonie TimesAmong the black leaders endorsing Mr. Cardin yesterday were Mr. Cummings; state Sen. Verna Jones, chairman of the state legislature's black caucus; and state Senate Majority Leader Nathaniel J. McFadden -- all Baltimore Democrats who endorsed Mr. Mfume in the primary election.

Comments

Panda Bites Drunk

Gu Gu
Man Bites Panda
Zhang Xinyan, 35, had drunk four draught beers before deciding to enter the Beijing Zoo pen belonging to six-year-old male panda Gu Gu.
The startled Gu Gu bit both legs of his intruder, who responded by biting "the panda on its back", Mr Zhang was quoted by state media as saying. Mr Zhang said he had not realised pandas could be violent.
Go, Gu Gu! Go, Gu Gu! Shock and awe!
Jeezuss Christ...I coulda told Mr. Zhang Pandas bite. Masticating 40 pounds of Bamboo a day takes a strong set of choppers. A pair of legs? Just two twigs. The solitary nocturnal Panda is easily startled. Entering their space while drunk can be hazardous.
--->

He told the Beijing Morning Post that he had come to the Chinese capital "only to see the pandas". "The seven-hour train ride was exhausting, and I drank bottles of beer when I arrived then had a nap," he added.

Punishment
The newspaper said Mr Zhang had a "sudden urge" to touch Gu Gu with his hand, so he jumped over the waist-high railing into the enclosure. "When he got closer and was undiscovered, he reached out to hug it," the newspaper added.
Mr Zhang was bitten first on his right leg, and then on his left.
Newspaper photographs showed him lying on a hospital bed with blood-soaked bandages over his legs.
"I bit the panda on its back but its fur was too thick," Mr Zhang recalled.
He went on: "No one ever said they would bite people. I just wanted to touch it."
Zoo spokeswoman Ye Mingxia said the panda was unharmed and they were not considering punishing Mr Zhang yet."He's suffered quite a bit of a shock," she told the Associated Press by telephone.

Heh heh...Go, Gu Gu! Go, Gu Gu!

Comments

Bullyin' and Lyin' at the UN

Watching George Bush deliver his "speech" to the UN was a distressing experience. He's an embarrassment to the United States but worse than that he's a cruel clueless man and a liar. Jaw dropping moments: "My country desires peace," he said. Technically he's right..WE want peace. It's the neocons who don't, peace isn't profitable for them. Lieboy said, "We respect Islam." Gee, he has a funny way of showing it. Torturing people, calling them fascists, bombing them...yeah, that's respect. Another gem, "Freedom by its nature can not be imposed." Sure, you have to use shock and awe, invade, build a giant embassy and several military bases first.
This speech was an insult to the rest of the world. Frat Boy Bush sneered and smirked and read his script haltingly. He "instructed" the rest of the world how to behave, took no responsibility for his numberous screwups and claimed successes in Afghanistan and Iraq. He threatened Iran several times and refused to meet with Ahmadinejad. The nasty characteristics he attributed to Middle Eastern nations were nothing more than projection. So much for diplomacy Bush-style. He has no business at the UN...he's a cowboy who's going to get us all blown up.
The UN schedule was running late, Bush and Ahmadinejad didn't overlap in the building.U.N. Debate
As was customary, Bush delivered the second speech of the day and co-hosted a lunch with Secretary-General Kofi Annan just before 1 p.m. Ahmadinejad didn't deliver his speech until the evening, and was not even in New York when Bush was at the U.N., according to U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.
There was one meeting Bush did not avoid. He shook hands warmly with his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, who was in town for his Clinton Global Initiative conference, which pushes the world's rich and powerful to act on poverty, health care and global warming. It probably made him feel better to see a man with diplomatic connections all over the world...a REAL president.
Transcript Video at link.

-end-

Comments