Saturday, August 11, 2007

Bush's Narco Politics Problem

Seems like Junior would feel right at home. His old man was always in bed with the big-time drug kingpins or their enablers, when not napping with the oil sheiks.

These new allegations about Colombia’s narco-politics have tarnished Uribe’s reputation just as Bush has been showcasing the Harvard- and Oxford-educated politician as a paragon of democratic values and an alternative to the firebrand Chávez, who has used Venezuela’s oil wealth to finance social programs for the poor across the region.

Despite the corruption disclosures – and Uribe’s failure to stem Colombian cocaine smuggling to the United States – the Bush administration continues to shower Uribe’s government with trade incentives and billions of dollars in military and development aid.

With other regional leaders unwilling to side with the United States against Chávez, Bush may see little alternative but to stay the course with the 55-year-old Uribe and hope Colombia’s corruption doesn’t draw too much attention in the United States or across South America.

Ironically, the latest evidence against Uribe’s government emerged from a U.S.-backed peace process that offered leniency to right-wing paramilitary death squads and their financial backers in exchange for giving up their guns and disclosing past crimes.

The right-wing paramilitaries and their cocaine-trafficking benefactors testified that elements of the Colombian government collaborated in a decade-long scorched-earth campaign that killed almost 10,000 civilians while seeking to dislodge a leftist guerrilla army known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

The confessions include blood-soaked tales of political murders, cocaine smuggling and staggering government corruption. As a result, dozens of former and current congressmen, governors, government ministers, military officers, prominent business leaders and multinational corporations are being investigated or have been arrested.

This so-called “para-scandal” revealed that a counterinsurgency force, known as the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia, or AUC, collaborated with drug lords to control the cocaine trade and simultaneously worked with Colombia’s elites, including Uribe’s family, to fend off the guerrilla threat.

Another troubling offshoot of the peace process was the creation of a safe haven for drug lords, who flocked to a 370-square-kilometer sanctuary set up for the AUC.

Colombian mafia boss Fabio Enrique Ochoa Vasco, 47, who was indicted in Florida in September 2004 for drug trafficking and money laundering, claimed he was one of 10 U.S.-wanted traffickers who found protection in the Santa Fe Ralito sanctuary.

AUC leaders “promised to include their financial backers in the negotiation” as a way to shield alleged cocaine traffickers from extradition to the United States, Ochoa Vasco told a Colombian magazine in June.

It was all prearranged in 2001, according to paramilitary and drug lord accounts. If Uribe won the presidency, paramilitary leaders would be offered generous sentence reductions and be allowed to serve their time outside prison walls if they demobilized and confessed.

Ochoa Vasco, who allegedly ships eight tons of cocaine monthly to the United States, was told that he and other AUC allies would be sentenced in Colombia to a maximum of 12 years, rather than face possible life sentences in U.S. prisons.

Uribe’s History

The new disclosures also have brought back to public attention the Uribe family’s long history of ties to drug lords and paramilitary militias. Colombia’s Supreme Court announced in July that it was investigating Senator Mario Uribe, the president’s cousin and his point man in the Colombian Congress, for alleged links to the AUC.

Several paramilitary leaders have said Mario Uribe was one of their allies and an intermediary with the government. He has denied any wrongdoing.

But the family link to purported drug lords dates back several decades. As a young man and an aspiring politician, Álvaro Uribe lost his position as mayor of Medellín – after only five months on the job – because the country’s president ousted him over his family’s suspected connections to traffickers, according to media reports at the time.

His father Alberto Uribe, a wealthy landowner, reputedly had been a close associate of the Medellín cartel and its kingpins, such as Pablo Escobar and the Ochoa brothers, who were personal friends.

In 1983, Alberto Uribe was reportedly wanted by the U.S. government for drug trafficking when he was killed in a kidnapping attempt by the FARC. According to media accounts, his body was airlifted back to his family by one of Escobar’s helicopters.

In the early 1990s, Álvaro Uribe’s brother, Santiago, was investigated for allegedly organizing and leading a paramilitary militia that was headquartered at the Uribe family hacienda. He was never charged and the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. But Santiago was photographed alongside Fabio Ochoa at a party even after the government had declared Ochoa one of the most notorious Medellín cartel kingpins.

The incident with Santiago Uribe coincided with Álvaro Uribe’s eight years in the Senate, where he opposed extradition of drug suspects. His critics accused him of working for the Medellín cartel.

But the relationship between right-wing narco-financed paramilitaries and the Colombian government has been a long and complex one, with shifting alliances based on the self-interest of the moment.

In 1992, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the CIA and the U.S. military, along with Colombian intelligence services, joined forces with the Cali cartel to train, equip and coordinate an undercover group of mercenaries known as the Pepes, an acronym for Persecuted by Pablo Escobar. Among its leaders was Carlos Castaño, who would later run the AUC.

Systematically, the Pepes assassinated Escobar’s top henchmen and their families, finally killing Escobar himself in 1993. The Pepes then split up. Some went on to create their own drug empires, while Castaño built a paramilitary army financed by rich landowners and drug dealers.

Since the war on Escobar’s organization, Castaño and the Cali cartel – as well as Colombian military officers – have claimed that they work side by side with U.S. agencies, but U.S. authorities have denied such an alliance.

The alienation from Washington widened in 1994 when President Ernesto Samper came to power amid disclosures that his campaign had received generous donations from drug cartels. President Bill Clinton cut most aid and severed some military support to Colombia because of Samper’s ties to drug traffickers.

With less U.S. aid, the Colombian army was unable to contain the FARC and coca acreage soared. Colombia’s rulers responded with the creation of paramilitary militias that used terror to reduce popular support for the guerrillas.

The Samper government pushed what was known as the Convivir project. It armed, trained and organized local defence cooperatives to provide “special private security and vigilance services” alongside the armed forces, creating another cover for right-wing paramilitary forces.

Rise of Uribe

Alvaro Uribe’s political rise was tied to the success of Convivir. In 1995, Uribe became the governor of Antioquia, a north-western district with Medellín as the capital.

Uribe was the country’s most vocal supporter of the defence cooperatives, authorizing dozens of them with almost 20 of these Uribe-backed cooperatives run by paramilitary leaders, including the AUC’s current top commander, Salvatore Mancuso. [Castaño, who operated in a different state, wasn’t one of them.]

Castaño is quoted in a biography as saying Uribe was the presidential candidate of the AUC’s social support base.

“Deep down, he’s the closest man to our philosophy,” Castaño said, adding that Uribe’s support for the Convivir was grounded on the same principle that gave rise to paramilitarism in Colombia, the right to self-defence against guerrillas.

When confronted with accusations of complicity between Convivir and drug-connected paramilitaries, Uribe said that at the time nobody knew who the right-wing leaders and the cocaine traffickers were.

After an international outcry, however, the government slowly phased out Convivir. By the time it was outlawed in 1998, however, over 200 defence cooperatives, counting thousands of men, defied the order to demobilize and joined Castaño’s new paramilitary alliance, the AUC.

The Convivir project had other long-term consequences. Beyond establishing and arming paramilitary militias, the project created a web of cooperation between Colombia’s military and right-wing death squads. Some paramilitary leaders, such as Castaño, claimed the CIA and DEA also gave the AUC discreet support.

At least two top paramilitary commanders have claimed that the Colombian military coordinated counterinsurgency operations with the AUC.

“I am living proof of state-sponsored paramilitarism in Colombia,” said the AUC’s Mancuso in his deposition earlier this year.

The AUC leaders have named several high-ranking Colombian officers as collaborating with the paramilitaries, including former General Rito Alejo del Rio, Antioquia’s commanding officer during Uribe’s governorship.

While running for the presidency in 2002, Uribe cited the perceived success of the Convivir program in damaging the FARC’s infrastructure in Antioquia as a key reason why Colombians should vote for him.

Despite the drug suspicions – and the links to paramilitary death squads – Uribe benefited from public disenchantment with a sputtering peace process that had failed to end the civil war. Uribe emerged as the winner with 53 percent of the vote.

After Uribe’s election, several drug barons claimed they had financed his campaign. Indicted drug trafficker Ochoa Vasco said he contributed $150,000 of his own money at the AUC’s request.

Ochoa Vasco also said he witnessed a conversation between the AUC’s leaders and supposed representatives of Uribe’s campaign before the election.

“They talked about the peace process,” Ochoa Vasco said. “They said anyone with problems with the U.S. could get involved. And in another meeting, there were businessmen, landowners and drug traffickers who [the AUC] thought they could also include, so they told them to get ready for the peace process.”

All the paramilitary leaders who negotiated the peace agreement “know the truth. They know that to be there, they invested more than 10 million dollars,” Ochoa Vasco said.

Government negotiations with the AUC began four months after Uribe took office. Castaño repositioned himself as an opponent of the drug corruption that, by then, clearly pervaded the AUC. He resigned as AUC military leader.

In April 2004, Castaño was ambushed by 20 elite paramilitaries following orders from the AUC’s top leaders. He was shot almost two dozen times in the face, chopped into pieces, and burned.

Surviving AUC leaders and drug traffickers said Castaño was killed because he was negotiating his surrender to the DEA along with all trafficking information about the AUC and its government and military allies. U.S. authorities have denied any negotiation.

Uribe-Bush Alliance

Meanwhile, Uribe lined up solidly behind President George W. Bush by becoming the only South American leader to endorse Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Uribe also sought more U.S. military aid as he defined the civil war against the leftist FARC as part of the “global war on terror.”

The backbone of U.S. policy in Colombia is Plan Colombia, a mostly military aid program to fight both drug production and irregular armies, most notably the FARC and the AUC. Since 2001, Washington has sent over $5 billion to Bogotá.

Nonetheless, Plan Colombia put little dent in cocaine production. The coca acreage in 2006 was slightly more than in 2001, when Plan Colombia was implemented. Acreage was reduced in 2003 and 2004 but shot up again in 2005 and 2006.

But Uribe’s success in curbing political violence boosted his popularity in Colombia. He vigorously pressed the war against the FARC, forcing the leftist guerrillas into a tactical retreat. Overall, Uribe reduced the number of murders, kidnappings and massacres by about one-third.

The Uribe-controlled Congress also passed the Justice and Peace Law, which launched a peace process with the right-wing paramilitaries that demobilized 30,000 men and women. The law was written by Sen. Mario Uribe, the cousin now being investigated for his AUC ties. Even the Bush administration criticized the law’s terms as overly lenient.

With Uribe’s popularity soaring, he got his congressional allies to change the Constitution to permit a second presidential term. Uribe then swept to reelection in 2006, winning 62 percent of the vote.

Still, accusations of corruption and unpunished human rights violations dogged him.

Several investigations, especially those led by Colombia’s Supreme Court, slowly amassed evidence against former and current government officials and prominent figures among the country’s elite.

Those implicated included dozens of current and former members of the Congress; high-ranking military officers, including the current chief of staff; entire army battalions allegedly working for drug cartels; prominent businessmen; and some of Uribe’s closest allies, including the father and brother of Colombia’s former foreign minister María Consuelo Araújo.

In March 2006, a laptop belonging to a top paramilitary leader was seized in a raid. The computer was found to contain detailed information on drug-trafficking operations, killings committed during the peace process, potential hit lists of other victims, the AUC’s plan for influencing the government, and a list of contributors and political allies.

One of the hit lists was linked to Colombia’s intelligence service and to its director, Jorge Noguera, a close Uribe ally who the president named consul in Milan after the initial investigation was opened.

Noguera was later arrested for his ties to the AUC and drug traffickers, for filtering information to the AUC, for erasing incriminating evidence of several drug traffickers and paramilitary leaders, for complicity in the assassinations of several union leaders, and for obstructing operations to capture his allies.

Other Colombian intelligence officials also were arrested, including one high-level official, Rafael García, who testified that he erased evidence at the request of Noguera. García also accused Noguera of plotting to assassinate Venezuela’s president Chávez in coordination with high-level officials in Uribe’s administration, though García didn’t give their names.

Paramilitary leader Mancuso also accused Uribe’s Defence Minister Juan Manuel Santos in his deposition of plotting with the AUC to kill Venezuela’s Chávez, although it’s not clear whether Santos was one of the men whom intelligence officer García was referring to. Santos denied the accusation.

Then, in December 2006, embarrassed by the ongoing criminality in the AUC’s Santa Fe Ralito safe haven, the government put some paramilitary leaders in prison. But even there, they continued to live the high life and kept on top of their criminal operations.

The local press published in May transcripts of police wiretaps revealing AUC leaders continuing to order killings and to direct drug trafficking from prison, while also enjoying dance parties, sexual orgies and alcohol. They hosted “Mexican friends” and had unrestricted access to cell phones and the Internet.

In one conversation, the frustrated former prison warden complained to a colleague that her orders were constantly overruled by her superiors when paramilitary leaders called to complain to the peace commissioner, government ministers and even the president. The warden soon requested to be relocated.

Infuriated by the wiretap disclosures, Uribe ordered the firing of the top 12 generals in the police, but he said little about the evidence of AUC criminality beyond promising another investigation.

AUC leaders also threatened to break off the peace process, accusing the government of changing the terms. They felt betrayed, they said, and threatened to incriminate all their elite allies, including politicians, businessmen, and multinationals.

Regional Trouble

The Organization of American States, which has overseen the peace process with the AUC, has been critical of the results. The OAS warned that the paramilitaries are rearming and reorganizing under different names, with stronger ties to drug traffickers, and are being led by some of the same leaders who supposedly had surrendered.

OAS Assistant Secretary General Albert Ramdin said this year that the AUC demobilization process might well fail to solve Colombia’s problem with drug-financed paramilitary groups.

Colombia’s approach “could trigger a truth and justice process that would put an end to paramilitary groups in the regions, and lead to reconstruction of the State,” Ramdin said. “Or, on the other hand, it could accentuate the influence of paramilitary groups linked to drug trafficking.”

Despite Colombia’s problems – the corruption, the shaky peace process and the shortcomings of its anti-drug program – Bush has continued to show unstinting support for Uribe. Calling Uribe a true democrat and a strong leader, Bush has visited Colombia twice, including earlier this year, and met with Uribe several times in Washington.

“I’m proud to call [Uribe] a friend and strategic ally,” Bush said during one of Uribe’s visits. In Bogotá, the U.S. president said: “I appreciate the [Colombian] president’s determination to bring human rights violators to justice. … I believe that, given a fair chance, President Uribe can make the case.”

Bush asked the U.S. Congress to increase financial support for Plan Colombia, but Democrats cut military aid from 80 percent to 65 percent of the total allocation, while increasing economic and humanitarian aid. Moreover, the Democrats attached strict conditions on the total $530 million.

Democrats also have conditioned their ratification of a free-trade agreement with Colombia on Uribe improving the country’s human rights record and prosecuting paramilitary leaders.

In South America, Uribe has slowly backed himself into a corner by siding with Bush. While most South American countries have grown more critical of U.S. foreign policy and its Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, Colombia has staunchly supported Bush’s policies, distancing itself from its neighbors.

Brazil and Ecuador have closer relations with Venezuela, as do most countries in the region, in stark contrast to a decade ago. Colombia has been kept out of South America’s Mercosur regional trade union, while Venezuela is expected to join sometime this year.

Uribe also has lost some regional backing in his fight against the FARC. Ecuador has resisted labelling the FARC a terrorist organization, but did criticize Plan Colombia and sought reparations for collateral damage inflicted by Colombian forces on Ecuador’s border population.

Meanwhile, the drug and corruption scandal keeps growing. Though Uribe has denied most of the accusations, drug lord Ochoa Vasco has said he is willing to negotiate his surrender to the DEA along with proof to support his charges.

Ochoa Vasco said some AUC leaders and drug traffickers now are willing to negotiate their surrender to U.S. law-enforcement agencies to avoid being murdered in Colombia, as powerful forces seek desperately to silence them and end the “para-scandal.”

In July, Henao Gómez Bustamante – the biggest reputed drug lord since Pablo Escobar – was extradited to face trafficking charges in the U.S. He is believed to have been a key player in right-wing politics and one of the main financers of the AUC.

The target of at least half a dozen assassination attempts while he was in prison, Gómez Bustamante told a magazine that he preferred being extradited to being murdered. He also said he will disclose all the information about drug corruption in Colombia, AUC infiltration, and Mexican cartels, in exchange for a more lenient sentence.

Whatever is ultimately proven, however, the spilling out of evidence linking Uribe to Colombia’s vast cocaine industry and to the country’s history of political murders is bad news for President Bush as he counts on Uribe to serve as the model for South America’s future and as a bulwark against Hugo Chávez.

Madrid-based Andrés Cala has written about Colombia’s civil conflict since 1998. An award-winning journalist, he’s worked in six countries for several outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones Newswires, and the Associated Press. Cala's e-mail is andres.cala@gmail.com.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

None of The Above, For President

My candidate would be "No-body for President," whom, I believe, has been running since the 60s, but this is close.

How about No-body for Congress as well?

Democrats.org:

None of the Above has polled higher than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and all the other Republican presidential candidates, reflecting a lackluster field that isn’t catching on with the American people.

Because Republicans are clamoring for a change, None of the Above is testing the presidential waters. This week in Iowa, look for an ad in the Ames Tribune, in which None of the Above will ask for the support of Republican voters. You can view the ad by clicking here (PDF).

Only 1 in 5 Iowa Republicans “say they are satisfied with” their choices in the Republican caucus. The current field represents no new ideas, no strategy to end the war in Iraq, and no plan for America’s future.

Only one candidate has a plan — and it’s None of the Above.

And now, None of the Above is asking for your support. Read more…


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

None of The Above, For President

My candidate would be "No-body for President," whom, I believe, has been running since the 60s, but this is close.

How about No-body for Congress as well?

Democrats.org:

None of the Above has polled higher than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and all the other Republican presidential candidates, reflecting a lackluster field that isn’t catching on with the American people.

Because Republicans are clamoring for a change, None of the Above is testing the presidential waters. This week in Iowa, look for an ad in the Ames Tribune, in which None of the Above will ask for the support of Republican voters. You can view the ad by clicking here (PDF).

Only 1 in 5 Iowa Republicans “say they are satisfied with” their choices in the Republican caucus. The current field represents no new ideas, no strategy to end the war in Iraq, and no plan for America’s future.

Only one candidate has a plan — and it’s None of the Above.

And now, None of the Above is asking for your support. Read more…


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Junior Just Loves Down Time.

Why are Republican presidents so lazy? Just wondering.

Or is it just Republican presidential puppets who demand all the down time? Being a puppet is hard work, don't ya know?

There’s just something amusing about the president’s penchant for vacations. As governor of Texas, Bush enjoyed an inordinate amount of “down time,” and he brought that style to the White House. When he’s at “work,” Bush leaves plenty of time for exercise and likes to knock off early. More importantly, he likes to get away from “work” more than anyone I’ve ever seen.

The amusing part of this, I suppose, is that one might assume that the president would have plenty to do. There is a war going on, and there are a variety of crises (economic, diplomatic, strategic) that demand real leadership. But Bush just loves to get away. (via TP)

President Bush tries to set an example for Americans whenever he can, in terms of physical fitness, faith, optimism and a certain overall moral rectitude. He also sets an excellent example on taking vacation.

(Junior is possible the worst example on earth when it comes to intellectual laziness, dogmatic belief systems, not faith.

On Thursday, Bush left for a weekend in Kennebunkport, Maine, and his family’s summer compound, Walker’s Point. On Monday, he heads to his Crawford retreat, where he has spent all or part of 418 days of his presidency, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS News White House correspondent and meticulous record-keeper.… Bush’s August sojourn will be his 65th trip to Crawford, according to Knoller.

The Houston Chronicle added, “The presidential vacation-time record holder is the late Ronald Reagan, who tallied 436 days in his two terms. At 418 days, and with 17 months to go in his presidency, Bush is going to beat that easily.”

It’s an interesting contrast with what the typical American worker faces.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Military Draft Has Always Been On The Table?

This article aside, there will be no draft, as long as martial law remains undeclared. The draft played a huge role in ending th Vietnam debacle and the Bushites learned that lesson well.

War Czar: Draft “has always been an option”

It turns out that a return to a military draft has never “been off the table”. And, this turns out to be one of the biggest ‘duh’ moments of the Bush regime. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Commentary By: Richard Blair

The DraftTalking about re-instituting conscription in the U.S. is political suicide for anyone seeking election. Let’s remember, though, that George Bush is most certainly not seeking further office after his term expires. During the 2004 presidential election run, speculation was rampant that Bush could not possibly continue the war in Iraq into 2005 AND truly protect national security interests unless a draft was reinstated.

The speculation turned out to be part right, part wrong. Bush did continue the war into 2005. The only way that manpower requirements have continued to be met is by using the corporate model: stretch your current employees to the breaking point (and beyond) when workload increases, but manpower doesn’t. National security interests being truly protected? Fat chance. The military in this country is stretched as thin as a Mormon virgin’s hymen. But a draft? No way, no how. Jackasses and elephants everywhere agree - when it comes to a draft - that’s the third rail of military politics.

So, no, no, no, no, no, goddamit, no. No draft yet, but…well…

You know, that’s a national policy decision point that we have not yet reached…I think it makes sense to certainly consider it, and I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table…

- Gen. Douglas Lute, Bush regime war czar, 8/10/2007

Hmmm. That’s interesting. I thought that the “national policy decision point” had already been reached?

Now, forget all this talk about a draft. We’re not going to have a draft so long as I am the president.

- George W. Bush, , POTUS, 10/9/2004

And this from the real POTUS:

Cheney said President Bush wanted to stay on the offensive with a global military solution to terrorism, but he called draft rumors “a myth that John Kerry is peddling.”

So, General Lute, it seems that we did reach that pesky little “national policy decision point” as far back as three years ago.

The lies never end, because the liars never stop lying.

From rampup to Ft Jackson, SC, 193 days to implement a draft is a whirlwind schedule. We’re not talking about drips and drabs of eligible conscriptees coming through the door singing five part harmonies. From the time a draft is authorized through the first thirty days that a draft is operational, the Selective Service Agency is committed to delivering 100,000 inductees…

Please read ASZ’s previous article on the Selective Service and potential to re-institute the draft (excerpted above), and consider applying for a position on your local Selective Service Board.

Selective Service Board? If Martial Law is declared, and it would have to be for a draft to work, join the military and demand training as a sharpshooter. Too old for the military? Then, apply for a seat on the Selective Service board and take aim at the wealthiest neighborhoods in your area.

(h/t to Brendan for the lead!)


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Apology From AT&T, For Censorship

Two years ago, they would not have apologized. So, this is progress...one baby-step step back from the abyss.

AT&T apologizes for censoring performer webcasts

Pearl Jam's Lollapalooza Webcast was not the only one to have been tinkered with.
By Randy Lewis
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

August 10, 2007

Oops, they did it before.

A day after AT&T apologized to Pearl Jam, Lollapalooza organizers and music fans for deleting a snippet of the band's performance last weekend in Chicago during which Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush, the company offered up another mea culpa Friday for tinkering with other performers' webcasts.

In response to fans who claimed that the audio silencing of Vedder's sung remarks about Bush at Lollapalooza were not unique in the history of AT&T's Blue Room live webcasts, an AT&T spokeswoman on Friday said: "It's not our intent to edit political comments in webcasts on the attblueroom.com. Unfortunately, it has happened in the past in a handful of cases. We have taken steps to ensure that it won't happen again."

The statement from spokeswoman Tiffany Nels did not specify what those steps were, nor did it mention what performers were involved.

One fan who contacted The Times Friday said AT&T's Blue Room webcast bleeped the sound during performances by the Flaming Lips and the John Butler Trio at the Bonnaroo Festival in Tennessee in June.

A public forum on Butler's website, www.johnbutlertrio.com, includes a discussion among fans about several audio gaps during a spoken introduction to the song "Gov Did Nothin'," which included references critical of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina.

A representative for the Flaming Lips said the band has received reports from fans of some corruption of the webcast of its Bonnaroo set but added that the band had not been able to review the specifics as of Friday for this story and would not comment.

After Pearl Jam complained on its website that Vedder's words about Bush had been muted at Lollapalooza, AT&T's Blue Room website quickly posted an apology:

"We screwed up on Sunday night when we deleted some lyrics from a live Pearl Jam performance that we were webcasting," the first statement said. "We understand why Pearl Jam and their fans are upset. We're upset, too, by this mistake which is totally against our policy -- of never, ever censoring political speech."

The statement also said, "We've webcasted [sic] more than 16 free concerts featuring approximately 310 bands and over 350 hours of live music and this hasn't happened before."

The assertion that it had never happened before elicited the response from fans claiming other shows had been muted, and AT&T's follow-up apology.

randy.lewis@latimes.com


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

When Will They Get It?

The Danger Lies Within!

Yet again, the Democrats roll over

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has the Democrats' number on Capitol Hill. All he has to do is play the fear card and invoke the war on terror and they will cave.

What's more, the president has found out that he can break the law and the rubber stamp

Democratic Congress will give him a pass every time.

The fear of being branded "soft on terrorism" was enough to make the Democrats capitulate once again to the Bush administration's demands. Or was it simply a looming vacation and beckoning campaign travel that led them to desert the nation's capital after giving the National Security Agency the power to expand its eavesdropping program without a warrant.

The Orwellian measure allows the federal government -- without a court order or oversight -- to intercept electronic communications between people in the U.S. and people outside the U.S.

The old rule required that a special court give its approval for that kind of surveillance. The new law bypasses the court and empowers the director of national intelligence and the attorney general to authorize the surveillance.

Oversight by the special foreign intelligence surveillance court is now severely limited to examining whether the government's guidelines for targeting overseas suspects are appropriate.

The administration said the new law is designed to bring the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1978 "in step with advances in technology by restoring the government's power to gather information without a warrant on foreign intelligence on targets located overseas."

Mike McConnell, the director of National Intelligence, asserted that he needed the expanded spying authority because "the government is significantly burdened in capturing overseas communications of foreign terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside the United States."

McConnell -- who is pushing for more spy power -- and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- who has huge credibility problems -- will decide on the targets. Both will also have charge of oversight of the program. Figure that!

In recent weeks, administration officials have warned that the United States is under a heightened terrorist threat.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid denounced the new legislation, saying it authorizes warrantless searches and surveillance of American phone calls, e-mails, homes, offices and personal records.

Civil liberties advocates and most Democrats warned the law will allow the government to monitor communications between U.S. residents and people living outside the country -- without first getting approval from the secret foreign intelligence court.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the lawmakers were "stampeded by fear-mongering and deception."

The White House stampeded members of Congress and they wilted. The question is who is going to protect the privacy rights of the U.S. citizen? Certainly not Bush and not Congress.

The legislation has a six-month expiration date, but critics are concerned that it may become permanent.

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., a member of the House Intelligence Committee said: "I'm not comfortable suspending the Constitution even temporarily."

Holt added: "The countries we detest around the world are the ones that spy on their own people. Usually they say they do it for public safety and security."

When Bush took the oath of office he swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

But after the 9/11 terrorist attack, he authorized a secret warrantless wiretapping program that allowed the NSA to intercept communications between individuals in the United States and others overseas when there is suspicion of a link to terrorism.

Full details of the program have never been revealed.

In ordering wiretapping without a warrant, Bush seemed to think that the laws did not apply to him. The compliant FISA court has turned down only one request for a warrant in the past two years. So what's his problem with obeying the law?

He seems to be giving credence to President Nixon's famous quote: "If a president does it, it's not illegal."

It boggles the mind to imagine what secret executive orders the next president will uncover after Bush leaves office and what the American people will eventually learn about the secret infringement of their rights.

Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2007 Hearst Newspapers.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Review: Smashing Documentary Film

No End in Sight

August 10, 2007


by Roger Ebert

Remember the scene in "A Clockwork Orange" where Alex has his eyes clamped open and is forced to watch a movie? I imagine a similar experience for the architects of our catastrophe in Iraq. I would like them to see "No End in Sight," the story of how we were led into that war, and more than 3,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of other lives were destroyed.

They might find the film of particular interest because they would know so many of the people appearing in it. This is not a documentary filled with anti-war activists or sitting ducks for Michael Moore. Most of the people in the film were important to the Bush administration. They had top government or military jobs, they had responsibility in Iraq or Washington, they implemented policy, they filed reports, they labored faithfully in service of U.S. foreign policy and then they left the government. Some jumped, some were pushed. They all feel disillusioned about the war and the way the White House refused to listen to them about it.

(Sorry, I can't let this paragraph pass without reminding Mr. Ebert that the "anti-war activists" who were against the Iraq war, from before it began, were right, while all the establishment goof-balls of government in this documentary worked to help launch the illegal, immoral debacle in the first place but then changed their minds, for which they should be given an atta- boy/girl award, admittedly.

Still, why does everyone assume that those of us who opposed this war from the get-go were just responding to an anti-war, knee-jerk reaction and not to an informed, self-educated opinion? There have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who have joined our ranks since the summer of 2003, as time and the actions of the Bush government have shown us to have been right 5 years ago, possibly even more right than we allowed ourselves to believe at the time.)

The subjects in this film now feel that American policy in Iraq was flawed from the start, that obvious measures were not taken, that sane advice was disregarded, that lies were told and believed, and that advice from people on the ground was overruled by a cabal of neo-con goofballs who seemed to form a wall around the president.

The president and his inner circle knew, just knew, for example, that Saddam had or would have weapons of mass destruction, that he was in league with al-Qaida and bin Laden, and that in some way, it was all hooked up with Sept. 11. Not all of the advice in the world could penetrate their obsession, and they fired the bearers of bad news.

It is significant, for example, that a Defense Intelligence Agency team received orders to find links between al-Qaida and Hussein. That there were none was ignored. Key adviser Paul Wolfowitz's immediate reaction to Sept. 11 was "war on Iraq." Anarchy in that land was all but assured when the Iraqi army was disbanded against urgent advice from our people in the field. That meant that a huge number of competent military men, most of them no lovers of Saddam, were rendered unemployed -- and still armed. How was this disastrous decision arrived at? People directly involved said it came as an order from administration officials who had never been to Iraq.

Did Bush know and agree? They had no indication. Perhaps not. A National Intelligence report commissioned in 2004 advised against the war. Bush, who apparently did not read it, dismissed it as guesswork -- a word that seems like an ideal description of his own policies.

Who is Charles Ferguson, director of this film? A one-time senior fellow of the Brookings Institute, software millionaire, originally a supporter of the war, visiting professor at MIT and Berkeley, he was trustworthy enough to inspire confidences from former top officials. They mostly felt that orders came from the precincts of Vice President Cheney, that Cheney's group disregarded advice from veteran American officials, and in at least one case, channeled a decision to avoid Bush's scrutiny. The president signed, but didn't read, and you can see the quizzical, betrayed looks in the eyes of the men and women in the film, who found that the more they knew about Iraq, the less they were heeded.

Although Bush and the war continue to sink in the polls, I know from some readers that they still support both. That is their right. And if they are so sure they are right, let more young men and women die or be maimed. I doubt if they will be willing to see this film, which further documents an administration playing its private war games. No, I am distinctly not comparing anyone to Hitler, but I cannot help being reminded of the stories of him in his Berlin bunker, moving nonexistent troops on a map, and issuing orders to dead generals.

(Comparing Bush to Hitler is silly, even though some of our own family of posters have done just that, at times. The two men are not alike in enough ways to make their personalities much of an issue. Nevertheless, the tactics and strategies of the Bushites and the Nazis are easily compared.

One must only remember that real evil does not show up in the same mask twice. American fascism will not look exactly like German Nazism, Italian fascism nor any other totalitarian state and oppressive economic system. The completely Authoritarian State, when it is complete, will be almost impossible to dissolve or, if necessary, overthrow, from within.)



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Madmen On The Loose

WASHINGTON — President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues.

At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said.

Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to elaborate on the warning.

Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.

The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.

Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence.

For now, however, the president appears to have settled on a policy of stepped-up military operations in Iraq aimed at the suspected Iranian networks there, combined with direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling.

The U.S. military launched one such raid Wednesday in Baghdad's predominantly Shiite Sadr City district.

But so far that course has failed to halt what American military officials say is a flow of sophisticated roadside bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, into Iraq. Last month they accounted for a third of the combat deaths among U.S.-led forces, according to the military.

Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said.

The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq."

Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that "the vice president is right where the president is" on Iran policy.

Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran.

"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq," he said.

He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government.

"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."

The Bush administration has launched what appears to be a coordinated campaign to pin more of Iraq's security troubles on Iran.

Last week, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. military commander in Iraq, said Shiite militiamen had launched 73 percent of the attacks that had killed or wounded American troops in July. U.S. officials think that majority Shiite Iran is providing militiamen with EFPs, which pierce armored vehicles and explode once inside.

Last month, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a multinational force spokesman, said members of the Quds force had helped plan a January attack in the holy Shiite city of Karbala, which lead to the deaths of five American soldiers. Bergner said the military had evidence that some of the attackers had trained at Quds camps near Tehran.

Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a more nuanced view of their neighbor.

Maliki is on a three-day visit to Tehran, during which he was photographed Wednesday hand in hand with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian officials they'd played a constructive role in the region.

Asked about that, Bush said he hadn't been briefed on the meeting. "Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive either," he said.

Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai differed on Iran's role when they met last weekend, with Karzai saying in a TV interview that Iran was "a helper" and Bush challenging that view.

The toughening U.S. position on Iran puts Karzai and Iraqi leaders such as Maliki in a difficult spot between Iran, their longtime ally, and the United States, which is spending lives and treasure to secure their newly formed government.

A senior Iraqi official in Baghdad said the Iraqi government received regular intelligence briefings from the United States about suspected Iranian activities. He refused to discuss details, but said the American position worried him.

The United States is "becoming more focused on Iranian influence inside Iraq," said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks with the Americans. "And we don't want Iraq to become a zone of conflict between Iran and the U.S."

Proposals to use force against Iran over its actions in Iraq mark a new phase in the Bush administration's long internal war over Iran policy.

Until now, some hawks within the administration — including Cheney — are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from furthering its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons.

Rice has championed a diplomatic strategy, but that, too, has failed to deter Iran so far.

Patrick Clawson, an Iran specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said a strike on the Quds camps in Iran could make the nuclear diplomacy more difficult.

Before launching such a strike, "We better be prepared to go public with very detailed and very convincing intelligence," Clawson said.

McClatchy Newspapers 2007

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Why Are Dems Hiding Eveen From Censure

Damn good question! Either Bush's policies and actions are corrupt and criminal or they are not. If they are, no Democrat should be playing politics with the situation, but standing on principle. They should be impeaching the Bushites, forthwith.

If they secretly agree with his policies and his methods, they should say so, as that is what will be assumed if they cave even one more time to Bush and his gang of thugs at the White House.

Actually, it is already being assumed by many independents.

Why Are Most Democratic Senators Hiding Even From Censure?

by Matthew Rothschild

When the history of the Bush Administration is finally written, the date of August 6, 2007, should stand out.

That was the day that a pair of identical resolutions were introduced in the Senate and in the House to censure George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales for a catalogue of sins, which could easily be turned into an impeachment bill of particulars.

One resolution deals with the Iraq War, the other with various assaults on the Constitution.

Together, the charges include:

Misleading the nation into the Iraq War.

Authorizing the NSA to illegally spy on Americans.

Allowing the torture of detainees, and denying them due process rights.

Misleading Congress and the American people about the firings of the U.S. attorneys, and obstructing investigations into this scandal.

And undermining acts of Congress by flagrant use of signing statements.

Senator Russ Feingold introduced the two measures in the Senate.

“Congress cannot stay silent when the American people are demanding that this Administration be held accountable for its blatant misconduct regarding Iraq and its attack on the rule of law,” Feingold said.

Representative Maurice Hinchey introduced the two censure motions in the House.

“The White House has continuously misled and deceived the American people while disregarding the rule of law that guides our democracy,” Hinchey said. Censure is necessary, he added, “to let the historical record show that an equal branch of government found the actions of this Administration undeniably reprehensible.”

Hinchey got 19 co-sponsors:

Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Danny Davis (D-IL), Sam Farr (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), John Hall (D-NY), Michael Honda (D-CA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), James Moran (D-VA), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Carol Shea Porter (D-NH), and Diane Watson (D-CA).

But Feingold got only one-and-a-half sponsors. Tom Harkin signed on to both the resolution on Iraq and the one dealing with constitutional violations. Barbara Boxer signed the Iraq motion only.

Where are the other Democratic Senators?

Where is Biden?

Where is Byrd?

Where is Clinton?

Where is Dodd?

Where is Kennedy?

Where is Leahy?

Where is Obama?

Where is Reid?

Let’s face it: Censure is just a public spanking. It carries no penalty. Certainly not removal from office, which is what a conviction for impeachment-which is what Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales deserve-would require.

We’ve been hearing all these noises coming from the Democratic leadership that impeachment would be a distraction and would tie up the business of the Congress. I don’t buy that. What is more important than standing up for democracy? But censure wouldn’t tie up Congress. And still the Democratic honchos are sitting this one out. So what’s their excuse?

It can’t be that they don’t believe in censure. After all, 29 Democratic Senators were on record in favor of censuring the President-when his name was Bill Clinton.

Dianne Feinstein introduced the bill to censure Clinton back in 1999. I don’t see her signing on to Feingold’s bill, even though the Clinton’s besmirching of his office does not compare to the grievous soiling of the Constitution that Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales have been engaged in.

Here are the names of some of the Democratic co-sponsors of Feinstein’s bill who are still in the Senate:

Daniel Akaka

Byron Dorgan

Richard Durbin

Daniel Inouye

Joe Lieberman

Ted Kennedy

John Kerry

Herb Kohl

Mary Landrieu

Carl Levin

Barbara Mikulski

Jay Rockefeller

Charles Schumer

And yes, Harry Reid.

Where are they now?

They’re nowhere to be seen.

One footnote on the Clinton censure: even 9 Republicans were in favor, including Pete Domenici, Mitch McConnell, and Olympia Snowe.

So don’t let any of them-Democrat or Republican-say that censure is somehow unthinkable or unconstitutional.

Back in 1999, they not only thought about it; they did it.

But now, in 2007, when Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales are assaulting our very democracy, all of these Senators have gone into hiding.

They are letting Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales carry on, with impunity, like some Argentine junta.

And they are setting a terrible precedent for future reprehensible lawlessness at the highest end of the executive branch.

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.

© 2007 The Progressive


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

9/11 Truth Movement: Rumbling Like An Impending Earthquake

The truth about 9/11 will begin to emerge as an issue in the light of day around the time of the 6th anniversary of that fateful day, this coming September. More and more people will begin to question what they have been told; the official conspiracy theory.

For the next year, the rumbling of the 9/11 truth movement will grow to an unignorable roar.

August 8, 2007

Bugles are blowing:

Now is the time for America to challenge the Bush/Republican "spinn" on 9/11

By W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

Bugles are blowing that now is the time for America to challenge the Bush/Republican “spin” on 9/11.


Seabirds of an approaching 9/11 tsunami are everywhere. New 9/11 sites are appearing almost every day. "Defensiveness” no more! Now we need to take the OFFENSIVE and once and for all seek out the historical and factual truth of this horrific event.

The pugs continue to dominate the diaper dem Congress, but they aren't dominating US! Just look at the polls! We are Americans and we love our country and we will do WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO to get our beloved nation back into touch with reality.

The Internet should be smoking with town hall meetings about 9/11. Forget our "non representatives". OK, so we got blind sided and most of this “Democratic” Congress has turned out to be closet Republicans.

However, sometimes in the midst of overwhelming confusion and chaos, the sun breaks through the clouds and we see something with a kind of perfection of clarity. And that "something" is 9/11.

9/11 should be the Battle Cry of America! Indeed, it should be the Battle Cry of the Earth. 9/11 is the ultimate scene of the crime, probably forecasted by the mysterious death (assassination?) of honorable Senator Wellstone and all that anthrax that was mailed only to high profile Democrats.

Remember the political toilet George Bush was in BEFORE 9/11? But then "abracadabra" and president pinhead was metamorphosed into a "hero". A hero! Dear God, what an obscenity. George Bush, this killer of America’s middle and lower classes, this killer of our children in Bush/Cheney Oil Wars, this killer of hope in the Israeli/Palestine conflict, this member of the Royal Bush Family with multiple historical ties to Adolph Hitler’s 3rd Reich, this raper of Mother Nature (and on and on and on) is a "hero"!

It makes you nauseated to use that word in connection with such a man.

9/11 is what mathematicians or philosophers would call the alpha and the omega. It's the core event since the year 2000 stolen presidential election.

It's redundant to review the mountains of data, pictures, news stories, and interviews with generals, scientists, and the most highly placed intelligence officials to make it see spot run simple, but here it is: they KNEW it was going to happen and they did NOTHING to stop it.

May we say that again? They KNEW it was going to happen and they did NOTHING to stop it.

So forget about being defensive about Bush/Republican lies. They ran that scam very effectively for a time, but then is then and now and is now and independently of Bush Democrats (thank God, not all of them), "We the People" want to get to the absolute bottom of 9/11.

And the only way to do it is by being aggressive (not "defensive"). We have as right to know the manner and degree to which Bush/Republicans "facilitated" 9/11. And we should NEVER forget that the control center of the Bush/Republican Administration is the neocon cabal.

We also have the right to know how and why bin Laden and George Bush seemed to be joined at the hip. Remember bin Laden's timely photo op before 2004 which was probably the main thing that got Bush elected (however illegally).

The polls show Bush is back in his toilet, so now is the time for "We the People" to stand up and be counted. If we have to act independently of the nonexistent Democratic Congress, so be it. Our Constitution makes provision far many more options than we think, e.g., referendums, petitions, demonstrations, letters to the editor (and local politicians), and boycotts all DEMANDING the truth of 9/11.

Billionaire Murdoch propaganda factories would do well to go with not against this American inevitability. We don't need Bush's dem toilet slaves to bring this off and neither do we need the Judas media.

WHAT WE NEED, WE HAVE. We have the Internet and we have the great majority of the American people. And most of all, our patriotic, moral outrage about the evidential Bush/Republican role in 9/11 blots out the sun.

So long as we don't commit to learning the absolute truth of 9/11, America will have no soul.

*****************************************************************

W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

ps. Forget 2008. We don't need that crystal ball and we have already waited YEARS to deal with this, so let's turn the Internet into a national/international 9/11 conflagration. Jesus, as always, said it to perfection: “The Truth shall set you free.”

Authors Website: www.theliberationofrealism.blogspot.com

Authors Bio: A liberal American, PhD mathematician, bipedal Earthling.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.