Can't really tell if it is the rain and cold or the politics that is so g-damned depressing
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
We, Indys, Don't Like Ugly.......
....while we sit here, watching as the Dem-bulbs (Obama/Clinton) do their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, shaking our heads in wonderment and despair.
There is an obvious alternative, if the rank and file Democrats would think for themselves and ignore the efforts of corporate America's news media to shut out the one Democrat they fear the most and the one that can wipe up the floor with any Rethug the GOP chooses;
John Edwards.
I think it's exciting." -- Bill Clinton, Tuesday, referring to the barbed exchange between his wife and Obama in a Democratic primary debate Monday.
Yes, the slash and burn, thrust and parry of political infighting is fun and exciting.
We get to see how well candidates respond when they're knocked off script by fair shots and foul blows. We get to see real emotion rather than the canned passion of stump speeches and position papers.
It's also destructive. Negative campaigning and the obsession with candidates' inevitable flaws breeds voter cynicism, apathy and disrespect.
So far, so pat.
The above observation could apply, conservatively, to 95 percent of all races ever run: Hypocritical Bum vs. Unprincipled Rascal.
But what's going on now in the Democratic presidential primary contest feels particularly destructive and therefore less fun and exciting (if you lean Democratic) or more fun and exciting (if you lean Republican).
Just in the last couple of weeks, the campaign between front-runners Obama and Clinton has gotten ugly -- deeply personal, openly hostile and racially divisive.
Never mind who started it, whose elbows are sharper or which candidate is the most chronically, reflexively mendacious. I have my view, and I'm sure you have yours.
Either way, the poisonous rhetoric is infuriating backers of Obama and Clinton and creating a rift that may not heal by November, even though their positions on issues are substantially the same.
This observation is purely anecdotal, and I base it on the sudden, sharp increase in the number of self-identified Democrats I've communicated with recently who've said something like this:
I used to think I could support either one of them, but now I'm so disgusted I could never vote for (him/her).
It's traditional to set aside grudges formed during the primary race and support the party in the general election, holding your nose if necessary.
But it's hard to hold a voting stylus while holding your nose with one hand and sticking your finger down your throat with the other. Look for some of these fierce loyalists to sit out the election in November.
Particularly if the GOP nominee is John McCain, whom many Democrats and independents see as the LOR (least objectionable Republican). And particularly if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, whom many Republicans and independents see as the MOD (you know).
Clinton gets the edge here in what may be an early or a late round in the primaries, depending on when the nomination is decided: She's not the one who's been running on the promise of a new high-tone style of politics, after all.
The Clintons' bloody political knuckles have been obvious since the early '90s, which explains both their successes and their comparatively high disapproval ratings.
So each squabble is a little victory for her. For now, this is true even when she loses on points or is caught in a deceitful contradiction, such as when she contended the other day that Obama had said Republicans had better ideas than Democrats (he said no such thing), and she blasted Obama for praising the same political skills and vision of Ronald Reagan that she herself has publicly praised.
The Republican field is also dramatically split, but for now the divisions seem to be more ideological than personal.
It will be ironic, though somehow predictable, if it turns out to be the heavily favored Democrats who fall at the hands of the "Anybody But Coalition."
I believe the technical term for this is "losing ugly."
We call it sickening beyond belief.
Never has there been a more obvious need for a multi-party system
(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.
There is an obvious alternative, if the rank and file Democrats would think for themselves and ignore the efforts of corporate America's news media to shut out the one Democrat they fear the most and the one that can wipe up the floor with any Rethug the GOP chooses;
John Edwards.
Personal and political divisions add up for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
Eric Zorn
January 24, 2008
Yes, the slash and burn, thrust and parry of political infighting is fun and exciting.
We get to see how well candidates respond when they're knocked off script by fair shots and foul blows. We get to see real emotion rather than the canned passion of stump speeches and position papers.
It's also destructive. Negative campaigning and the obsession with candidates' inevitable flaws breeds voter cynicism, apathy and disrespect.
So far, so pat.
The above observation could apply, conservatively, to 95 percent of all races ever run: Hypocritical Bum vs. Unprincipled Rascal.
But what's going on now in the Democratic presidential primary contest feels particularly destructive and therefore less fun and exciting (if you lean Democratic) or more fun and exciting (if you lean Republican).
Just in the last couple of weeks, the campaign between front-runners Obama and Clinton has gotten ugly -- deeply personal, openly hostile and racially divisive.
Never mind who started it, whose elbows are sharper or which candidate is the most chronically, reflexively mendacious. I have my view, and I'm sure you have yours.
Either way, the poisonous rhetoric is infuriating backers of Obama and Clinton and creating a rift that may not heal by November, even though their positions on issues are substantially the same.
This observation is purely anecdotal, and I base it on the sudden, sharp increase in the number of self-identified Democrats I've communicated with recently who've said something like this:
I used to think I could support either one of them, but now I'm so disgusted I could never vote for (him/her).
It's traditional to set aside grudges formed during the primary race and support the party in the general election, holding your nose if necessary.
But it's hard to hold a voting stylus while holding your nose with one hand and sticking your finger down your throat with the other. Look for some of these fierce loyalists to sit out the election in November.
Particularly if the GOP nominee is John McCain, whom many Democrats and independents see as the LOR (least objectionable Republican). And particularly if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, whom many Republicans and independents see as the MOD (you know).
Clinton gets the edge here in what may be an early or a late round in the primaries, depending on when the nomination is decided: She's not the one who's been running on the promise of a new high-tone style of politics, after all.
The Clintons' bloody political knuckles have been obvious since the early '90s, which explains both their successes and their comparatively high disapproval ratings.
So each squabble is a little victory for her. For now, this is true even when she loses on points or is caught in a deceitful contradiction, such as when she contended the other day that Obama had said Republicans had better ideas than Democrats (he said no such thing), and she blasted Obama for praising the same political skills and vision of Ronald Reagan that she herself has publicly praised.
The Republican field is also dramatically split, but for now the divisions seem to be more ideological than personal.
It will be ironic, though somehow predictable, if it turns out to be the heavily favored Democrats who fall at the hands of the "Anybody But Coalition."
I believe the technical term for this is "losing ugly."
We call it sickening beyond belief.
Never has there been a more obvious need for a multi-party system
(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.
These Indys Don't Like Ugly
As we sit and watch the Dem-bulbs snatch defeat from the laws of victory.
But there is an alternative, if Americans would only think for themselves, instead of believing that the only Democrats running are Clinton and Obama, as the corporate media would have us believe.
The one candidate who can roundly beat any Rethug. in November is John Edwards
"I like this. I think it's exciting." -- Bill Clinton, Tuesday, referring to the barbed exchange between his wife and Obama in a Democratic primary debate Monday.
Yes, the slash and burn, thrust and parry of political infighting is fun and exciting.
We get to see how well candidates respond when they're knocked off script by fair shots and foul blows. We get to see real emotion rather than the canned passion of stump speeches and position papers.
It's also destructive. Negative campaigning and the obsession with candidates' inevitable flaws breeds voter cynicism, apathy and disrespect.
So far, so pat.
The above observation could apply, conservatively, to 95 percent of all races ever run: Hypocritical Bum vs. Unprincipled Rascal.
But what's going on now in the Democratic presidential primary contest feels particularly destructive and therefore less fun and exciting (if you lean Democratic) or more fun and exciting (if you lean Republican).
Just in the last couple of weeks, the campaign between front-runners Obama and Clinton has gotten ugly -- deeply personal, openly hostile and racially divisive.
Never mind who started it, whose elbows are sharper or which candidate is the most chronically, reflexively mendacious. I have my view, and I'm sure you have yours.
Either way, the poisonous rhetoric is infuriating backers of Obama and Clinton and creating a rift that may not heal by November, even though their positions on issues are substantially the same.
This observation is purely anecdotal, and I base it on the sudden, sharp increase in the number of self-identified Democrats I've communicated with recently who've said something like this:
I used to think I could support either one of them, but now I'm so disgusted I could never vote for (him/her).
It's traditional to set aside grudges formed during the primary race and support the party in the general election, holding your nose if necessary.
But it's hard to hold a voting stylus while holding your nose with one hand and sticking your finger down your throat with the other. Look for some of these fierce loyalists to sit out the election in November.
Particularly if the GOP nominee is John McCain, whom many Democrats and independents see as the LOR (least objectionable Republican). And particularly if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, whom many Republicans and independents see as the MOD (you know).
Clinton gets the edge here in what may be an early or a late round in the primaries, depending on when the nomination is decided: She's not the one who's been running on the promise of a new high-tone style of politics, after all.
The Clintons' bloody political knuckles have been obvious since the early '90s, which explains both their successes and their comparatively high disapproval ratings.
So each squabble is a little victory for her. For now, this is true even when she loses on points or is caught in a deceitful contradiction, such as when she contended the other day that Obama had said Republicans had better ideas than Democrats (he said no such thing), and she blasted Obama for praising the same political skills and vision of Ronald Reagan that she herself has publicly praised.
The Republican field is also dramatically split, but for now the divisions seem to be more ideological than personal.
It will be ironic, though somehow predictable, if it turns out to be the heavily favored Democrats who fall at the hands of the "Anybody But (underscore)(underscore)(underscore)(underscore)(underscore) Coalition."
I believe the technical term for this is "losing ugly."
(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.
But there is an alternative, if Americans would only think for themselves, instead of believing that the only Democrats running are Clinton and Obama, as the corporate media would have us believe.
The one candidate who can roundly beat any Rethug. in November is John Edwards
Personal and political divisions add up for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
Eric Zorn
"I like this. I think it's exciting." -- Bill Clinton, Tuesday, referring to the barbed exchange between his wife and Obama in a Democratic primary debate Monday.
Yes, the slash and burn, thrust and parry of political infighting is fun and exciting.
We get to see how well candidates respond when they're knocked off script by fair shots and foul blows. We get to see real emotion rather than the canned passion of stump speeches and position papers.
It's also destructive. Negative campaigning and the obsession with candidates' inevitable flaws breeds voter cynicism, apathy and disrespect.
So far, so pat.
The above observation could apply, conservatively, to 95 percent of all races ever run: Hypocritical Bum vs. Unprincipled Rascal.
But what's going on now in the Democratic presidential primary contest feels particularly destructive and therefore less fun and exciting (if you lean Democratic) or more fun and exciting (if you lean Republican).
Just in the last couple of weeks, the campaign between front-runners Obama and Clinton has gotten ugly -- deeply personal, openly hostile and racially divisive.
Never mind who started it, whose elbows are sharper or which candidate is the most chronically, reflexively mendacious. I have my view, and I'm sure you have yours.
Either way, the poisonous rhetoric is infuriating backers of Obama and Clinton and creating a rift that may not heal by November, even though their positions on issues are substantially the same.
This observation is purely anecdotal, and I base it on the sudden, sharp increase in the number of self-identified Democrats I've communicated with recently who've said something like this:
I used to think I could support either one of them, but now I'm so disgusted I could never vote for (him/her).
It's traditional to set aside grudges formed during the primary race and support the party in the general election, holding your nose if necessary.
But it's hard to hold a voting stylus while holding your nose with one hand and sticking your finger down your throat with the other. Look for some of these fierce loyalists to sit out the election in November.
Particularly if the GOP nominee is John McCain, whom many Democrats and independents see as the LOR (least objectionable Republican). And particularly if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, whom many Republicans and independents see as the MOD (you know).
Clinton gets the edge here in what may be an early or a late round in the primaries, depending on when the nomination is decided: She's not the one who's been running on the promise of a new high-tone style of politics, after all.
The Clintons' bloody political knuckles have been obvious since the early '90s, which explains both their successes and their comparatively high disapproval ratings.
So each squabble is a little victory for her. For now, this is true even when she loses on points or is caught in a deceitful contradiction, such as when she contended the other day that Obama had said Republicans had better ideas than Democrats (he said no such thing), and she blasted Obama for praising the same political skills and vision of Ronald Reagan that she herself has publicly praised.
The Republican field is also dramatically split, but for now the divisions seem to be more ideological than personal.
It will be ironic, though somehow predictable, if it turns out to be the heavily favored Democrats who fall at the hands of the "Anybody But (underscore)(underscore)(underscore)(underscore)(underscore) Coalition."
I believe the technical term for this is "losing ugly."
(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, January 24, 2008
Top Dems Stall Miers, Bolten Contempt Vote
Can it possibly be true that members of Congress are only now realizing the dire situation of the U.S. economy, not to mention Asian and other economies around the world? Is it really possible that they are all that out-of-touch?
Many of our financial lives began getting shaky as far back as late 2000. Since 9/11/01 it has been a steady down-hill slide, even though many of our membership saw the writing on the wall when the towers came down. (The initial expense of getting as far off the grid as possible is a bit staggering, especially if your name isn't Rockefeller or Kennedy, Gates or Winfrey, and it takes time.)
Or could it be that the world economies, especially that of the U.S., have become so obviously in deep trouble that even the most concrete among their constituents cannot help but see it, so Bush and Congress have no choice but to get their act together (even if it is way too late to do anything but, maybe, kick the can down the road (which was the Bush plan all along) until he is no longer in office? Of course, the latest quakes on Wall Street are always another excuse for a few more billion in corporate welfare. The Democrats will be all too happy to give a rebate to taxpayers of the poorest kind, who will have no choice but to spend it....on a tank of gas, maybe.
Those who are too poor to even pay taxes are still invisible, as they always have been and always will be, no matter what Hillary says, until they realize that invisibility has its advantages and decide to use those advantages in some fairly creative ways to begin stirring the waters of revolution. It has been a very long time, if ever, since the poorest of the poor stood a chance of being joined by others of higher socio-economic levels in a true revolt against a system that is killing them and will leave their children with no future at all.
So, why delay contempt citations when no one, not even Bush the Dumber, can refuse to get on-board with the stimulus package? What does one have to do with the other?
(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.
Many of our financial lives began getting shaky as far back as late 2000. Since 9/11/01 it has been a steady down-hill slide, even though many of our membership saw the writing on the wall when the towers came down. (The initial expense of getting as far off the grid as possible is a bit staggering, especially if your name isn't Rockefeller or Kennedy, Gates or Winfrey, and it takes time.)
Or could it be that the world economies, especially that of the U.S., have become so obviously in deep trouble that even the most concrete among their constituents cannot help but see it, so Bush and Congress have no choice but to get their act together (even if it is way too late to do anything but, maybe, kick the can down the road (which was the Bush plan all along) until he is no longer in office? Of course, the latest quakes on Wall Street are always another excuse for a few more billion in corporate welfare. The Democrats will be all too happy to give a rebate to taxpayers of the poorest kind, who will have no choice but to spend it....on a tank of gas, maybe.
Those who are too poor to even pay taxes are still invisible, as they always have been and always will be, no matter what Hillary says, until they realize that invisibility has its advantages and decide to use those advantages in some fairly creative ways to begin stirring the waters of revolution. It has been a very long time, if ever, since the poorest of the poor stood a chance of being joined by others of higher socio-economic levels in a true revolt against a system that is killing them and will leave their children with no future at all.
So, why delay contempt citations when no one, not even Bush the Dumber, can refuse to get on-board with the stimulus package? What does one have to do with the other?
| |
| House Democrats will postpone votes on criminal contempt citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, while congressional leaders work with President Bush on a bipartisan stimulus package to fend off an economic downturn, according to party leaders and leadership aides. Senior Democrats have decided that holding a controversial vote on the contempt citations, which have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, would “step on their message” of bipartisan unity in the midst of the stimulus package talks. Bush, citing executive privilege, has refused to allow Bolten or Miers to testify before the House Judiciary panel about the prosecutor purge. And former deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove was barred by the administration from appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the same issue. “Right now, we’re focused on working in a bipartisan fashion on [the] stimulus,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), indicating that the contempt vote is not expected for weeks, depending on how quickly the stimulus package moves. Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said “no decision has been made” as to when a criminal contempt vote would be held by the House. The Judiciary Committee approved contempt citations against Bolten and Miers on July 25, but Pelosi has yet to bring the measures to the floor. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved similar contempt citations against Bolten and Rove shortly before Congress adjourned in December.  The White House has declined to turn over internal documents sought by House and Senate Democrats looking into the U.S. attorney firings. And White House counsel Fred Fielding has offered only very limited circumstances under which current and former top White House aides can be interviewed about the firings. Miers, a lawyer now back in private practice in Dallas, cited a White House claim of executive privilege and declined to appear at a July 12 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee. White House aides have dismissed the prospect of a contempt battle with the Democratic-controlled Congress as a distraction from more pressing work, such as dealing with the war in Iraq and the nation’s sagging economy. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also threatened to prevent Jeffrey Taylor, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who would represent the Congress in a legal battle with the White House, from going to court to enforce the subpoenas. And Gonzales’ successor, Michael Mukasey, declined during his confirmation hearing to say definitively how he would handle the issue. Pelosi, who personally supports the contempt citations, has gotten mixed messages from her own leaders, as well as rank-and-file members, on whether to move ahead, although it is clear that there are not now enough votes for the citations to be approved by the House, according to Democratic insiders. “When we have the votes, we’ll go ahead with this. Right now, the votes are just not there,” said one top House Democratic insider, speaking on the condition of anonymity. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other members of his panel have pressed Democratic leaders to hold the contempt vote, arguing that a failure to move would set a dangerous precedent that could weaken the Congress in any future investigations of the White House. Conyers’ staff declined to comment Tuesday. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not received any word from Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) when a floor vote on contempt citations might occur. “Sen. Reid is consulting with Sen. [Patrick] Leahy [D-Vt.] and others when to hold a vote,” said Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley. | |
| TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company | |
(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.
Kiwis Protest ECHELON's; newest, huge facility on their soil
ECHELON, the spy network of the U.S., Canada, N.Z., Australia and the U.K, of course, even spies on the U.N.
I don't imagine that comes as a surprise to any of our I.U. membership, but it might to others.
The following article was written for infonews in Kiwiland by our good friend and source of news from the far-flung outposts of the Empire, Jenese James.
NEWS 24 January 2008, 9:08AM
CREDIT: Jenese James
(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.
I don't imagine that comes as a surprise to any of our I.U. membership, but it might to others.
The following article was written for infonews in Kiwiland by our good friend and source of news from the far-flung outposts of the Empire, Jenese James.
| infonews.co.nz |
CREDIT: Jenese James
Revisiting New Zealand's place in the worlds spy network - Echelon
By Jenese JamesThe Waihopai spy station in Blenheim is a story of politics, deception and betrayal. Forced into the public consciousness in 1996 by the investigative reporting of Nicky Hagar, its worth taking time out to revisit our role in the US/UK spy network as people begin to gather in Blenheim this weekend to protest our involvement in Americas war of terror.
Waihopai has a long history of lies, deceit and obfuscation at the very highest level. Its existence reveals that we in New Zealand, rather than being a neutral observer and minor player in the US’s war on terror, are in fact, a vital part of it. We have become, unwittingly, a vital cog in the intelligence grabbing that so erroneously frames the crimes against humanity being perpetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere by the United States of America.
New Zealand has three American military bases, Harewood (Christchurch Airport); and the "NZ" intelligence gathering installations at Tangimoana (Manawatu) and Waihopai (Marlborough),
It was researcher Owen Wilkes who first discovered the Government Communications Security Bureau GCSB’s first spy station, up near Palmerston North at Tangimoana beach in 1983. "It was a radio intercept station that was intercepting long distance radio from within the (former) Soviet Union and from their ships across the Pacific. Tangimoaana could listen practically right around the world because of the nature of high frequency radio. Finding out about that station, Wilkes worked out that NZ had a major spy agency which no one had been told about."
Today Waihopai is the newest and by far the biggest and the focus of this weekends public protests initiated by the Anti Bases Campaigners who have been protesting the existence of this Kiwi connection since 1988. Almost a decade after Wilkes exposure Nicky Hagar, a veteran Wellington peace activist who had been protesting with them since the beginning wrote “Secret Power”, the book that blew the lid off the role that Waihopai and the New Zealand GCSB play in the US-led international spy network, now known by its code name Echelon.
In the words of Murray Horton from the Anti bases campaign “ This spy ring is operated by New Zealand's Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), in the interests of the foreign powers grouped together in the super-secret UKUSA Agreement (which shares global electronic and signals intelligence among the Intelligence agencies of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ). Its two satellite interception dishes (shielded by giant domes) intercept a huge volume of satellite phone calls, including New Zealanders’ international calls, plus telexes, faxes, e-mail and computer data communications. It gathers this data from our Asia/Pacific neighbors, and forwards it on to the major partners in the UKUSA Agreement, specifically the US National Security Agency. Its targets include international communications involving New Zealanders.
“Big Ears” cover a vast area of the Pacific. Although Iraq is on the other side of the world, the US military/intelligence network that is planning that war is global and depends on global facilities. Waihopai is strategically situated in the Pacific for spying on several countries, such as Indonesia, that does not support US war plans or the so-called “war on terror”. If New Zealanders disagree with US policies and warmongering, then Waihopai is located right here to monitor our own international e-mails and phone calls and report directly to Big Brother at our expense - because we pay for Waihopai with millions of our tax dollars every year. The Bush Administration has pronounced Intelligence to be the key component of all the wars that it is fighting, or planning to fight, throughout the world. Thus, much more so than any token commitment of the SAS or a frigate, the Waihopai spy base is New Zealand’s key contribution to all these American wars
Writing in Covert Action quarterly in an article entitled “Exposing the global surveillance system” Nicky stated “For 40 years, New Zealand's largest intelligence agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) the nation's equivalent of the US National Security Agency (NSA) had been helping its Western allies to spy on countries throughout the Pacific region, without the knowledge of the New Zealand public or many of its highest elected officials. What the NSA did not know is that by the late 1980s, various intelligence staff had decided these activities had been too secret for too long, and were providing me with interviews”
It wasn’t only the citizens of Aotearoa that had no idea, neither did David Lange, Labour Prime minister of New Zealand from 1984 to 1989. Lange who wrote the preface to Hagar’s book explained “Life at the time was full of unpleasant surprises. State-sponsored terrorism was a crime against humanity as long as it wasn’t being practiced by the allies, then it was studiously ignored. In the national interest it became necessary to say "ouch" and frown and bear certain reprisals of our intelligence partners. We even went the length of building a satellite station at Waihopai. But it was not until I read this book that I had any idea that we had been committed to an international integrated electronic network……. it is an outrage that I and other ministers were told so little, and this raises the question of to whom those concerned saw themselves ultimately answerable.”
That question is still relevant and one that is continually raised at the annual protests. Its one we should be directing to our elected representatives to answer for us.
However, the minister in charge of the GCSB and the SIS is always the Prime Minister. It could be John Keys tomorrow, it makes little difference, whoever it is they have little say about what these bases can do, will do and have done as Lange found out to his shock and disconcertion.
It was Lange as Prime minister that put New Zealand on the map by supporting the will of the people in declaring NZ a nuclear free zone. Outraged by our stance the US noted both officially and publicly that they would throw us out of the intelligence alliance. The headlines screamed that NZ had been cut off from foreign intelligence. It was a lie, according to Hagar “The New Zealand GCSB’s relationship with, particularly, the American and the British intelligence agencies had not been changed at all. And the reason they’d set up this station was not what they told the Labour government at the time – when they said it was to make New Zealand more independent – it was actually to make New Zealand more integrated into the international alliance”
What makes this astounding is that when the French government, in an illegal act of state sponsored terrorism bombed the Rainbow Warrior killing Fernando Pereira, the ship's photographer, there was NO warning. That’s worth repeating. Despite its extensive spy network NO warning was given to NZ authorities. It would be easy to conclude that the US had withheld such information in retaliation for our nuclear free stance. Today we call this nation our very good friends. Nicky sums it up best when he says “Public alliances between countries don't seem to make any difference to secret intelligence operations. It would be naive to assume that friendly NATO allies and so on aren't using the resources they have got for continuous spying.”
We were even spying on the UN in 2003, before the US illegally attacked Iran. The denials were echoing down the corridors of power even as Nicky wrote in the listener that “I’ve talked to GCSB staff whose daily job was scrolling through the intercepted communications of UN agencies based in Suva (Fiji), forwarding them to the NSA, CIA and other allied Intelligence agencies. That’s right, they routinely spy on the UN”
New Zealand’s Waihopai station plays a vital role in the spy ring. It places New Zealand in a prime position in this bogus war on terror. Despite it being 2008, very few kiwi’s know the existence let alone the role this NZ spy station plays. Many still consider it a conspiracy, a myth, but it is very real. As Hagar says to the UK Echelon committee “The great thing about secret operations is that they are deniable. Even where it is completely non-credible, where something is proven to a high degree, it can still be denied, because it is so secret."
For an excellent overview please read
Nicky Hagar address to the echelon Committee UK
Waihopai 2007 – counting the costs of 20 years of spying
From “Secret Power” to “The Hollow Men
Spies and secret services Aotearoa NZ
The words that trigger Echelon
The Power of Nightmares BBC documentary of the politics of fear
The worlds secret spy network ECHELON is now spying on the citizens in the belly of the beast as well as others around the world
(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.
The latest On Edwards
Just a reminder: I.U. has not endorsed anyone for president yet. We might not.
But it is fairly obvious who Pelican6 supports. (D. Dedman)
(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.
But it is fairly obvious who Pelican6 supports. (D. Dedman)
Fresno Bee Endorses John Edwards For President
Press Media Wire (Press Release) - Sterling,VA,USA
23, 2008 – Today, California's Fresno Bee endorsed Senator John Edwards for President citing his leadership in standing up for middle class families and ...
See all stories on this topic
US Democratic rivals Obama and Edwards compete in South
Reuters South Africa - Johannesburg,South Africa
By Deborah Charles BENNETTSVILLE, SC (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John Edwards appealed for votes in South Carolina on ...
See all stories on this topic
All hail King(maker) Edwards
Politico - Washington,DC,USA
Photo: AP John Edwards is not going to win this presidential race. He has now slipped to 9 percent in the national polls, trailing Sens. ...
See all stories on this topic
Agents of Change
Valley Advocate - Easthampton,MA,USA
John Edwards, are cautious about expanding government, especially on the key issue of health insurance. They sense—with some justification from public ...
See all stories on this topic
Overshadowed Edwards vows to plug ahead
Chicago Tribune - United States
John Edwards is it. Four years ago, he dazzled the Palmetto State, but this time his glitter is getting lost in the glare surrounding his two celebrity ...
See all stories on this topic
Edwards’ (Seriously Flawed) Electability Argument
Donklephant - USA
The Edwards campaign latest justification for remaining in the race is that John Edwards is the ONLY electable Democratic candidate (as opposed to a similar ...
See all stories on this topic
Still 47 states to go for Edwards
The Independent Weekly - Durham,NC,USA
BY BOB GEARY After his wipeout Saturday in the Nevada caucuses, John Edwards was hoping, as he said gamely, "that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. ...
See all stories on this topic
Edwards visits OKC
Midwest City Sun - Midwest City,OK,USA
OKLAHOMA CITY — Senator John Edwards, Democratic presidential candidate, spoke at the Oklahoma City Teamsters Local Union 886 Friday evening. ...
See all stories on this topic
Edwards traveling SC, trying to close the gap
WIS - Columbia,SC,USA
STATEWIDE (WIS) - South Carolina native John Edwards has been criss-crossing the Palmetto State in recent weeks, looking to close the gap with Senator ...
See all stories on this topic
A Look at the 2008 Presidential Race
The Associated Press -
___ Edwards jabs Clinton for leaving SC BENNETTSVILLE, SC (AP) — Democrat John Edwards criticized rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for leaving South Carolina in ...
See all stories on this topic
John Edwards on FISA
By Jane Hamsher
John Edwards:. In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off ...
Firedoglake - http://firedoglake.com
"I hope Democrats don't take another look at John Edwards"
By Jed
Though their back and forth threatened to drain all substance from the debate, John Edwards showed leadership, and stuck to the issues, urging Hillary and Obama to focus on what's really important. We have got to understand, ...
The Jed Report - http://www.jedreport.com/
Fresno Bee Endorses John Edwards For President
John Edwards' campaign for president offers a much-needed vision that recognizes the hope and promise of America," the editorial board wrote. "It's a view that includes solidifying the plight of working families and others in the middle ...
John Edwards for President: Full-site... - http://www.johnedwards.com/
John Edwards On Countdown: I Will Support The Democratic Nominee ...
By Logan Murphy
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has been getting some much needed media attention lately, appearing on The Late Show with David Letterman last night and appeared on Countdown today and talked with Keith about the ongoing ...
Crooks and Liars - http://www.crooksandliars.com/
John Edwards Visits David Letterman
By Brian Stelter
John Edwards joked with David Letterman on Tuesday. (CBS) Former Senator John Edwards did not receive an endorsement from David Letterman on CBS’s “The Late Show” Tuesday night, but he did receive eight valuable minutes to woo voters. ...
Submitted by Pelican 6
(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.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Bill Clinton Is Showing His True Colors.....
....and they ain't pretty.
What's Gotten Into Bill?
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, January 22, 2008; A19
Six months ago, Bill Clinton seemed to be settling comfortably into roles befitting a silver-maned former president: statesman, philanthropist, philosopher-king. Now he has put all that high-mindedness on hold -- maybe it was never such a great fit, after all -- to co-star in his wife Hillary's campaign as a coldblooded political hit man.
No, scratch the "coldblooded" part. At times, in his attempt to cut Barack Obama down to size, Bill Clinton has been red-faced with anger; his rhetoric about voter suppression and a great big "fairy tale" has been way over the top. This doesn't look and sound like mere politics. It seems awfully personal.
Obama's candidacy not only threatens to obliterate the dream of a Clinton Restoration. It also fundamentally calls into question Bill Clinton's legacy by making it seem . . . not really such a big deal.
That, I believe, is the unforgivable insult. The Clintons picked up on this slight well before Obama made it explicit with his observation that Ronald Reagan had "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."
Let's take a moment to consider that remark. Whether it was advisable for Obama to play the role of presidential historian in the midst of a no-holds-barred contest for the Democratic nomination, it's hard to argue with what he said. I think Bill Clinton was a good president, at times very good. And I wouldn't have voted for Reagan if you'd held a gun to my head. But even I have to recognize that Reagan -- like Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union -- was a transformational figure, for better or worse.
Bill Clinton's brilliance was in the way he surveyed the post-Reagan landscape and figured out how to redefine and reposition the Democratic Party so that it became viable again. All the Democratic candidates who are running this year, including Obama, owe him their gratitude.
But Obama has set his sights higher, and implicit in his campaign is a promise, or a threat, to eclipse Clinton's accomplishments. Obama doesn't just want to piece together a 50-plus-1 coalition; he wants to forge a new post-partisan consensus that includes "Obama Republicans" -- the equivalent of the Gipper's "Reagan Democrats." You can call that overly ambitious or even naive, but you can't call it timid. Or deferential.
Both Clintons have trouble hiding their annoyance at Obama's impertinence. Bill, especially, gives the impression that Obama has gotten under his skin. His frequent allegations of media bias in Obama's favor recall the everybody-against-us feeling of the impeachment drama, when the meaning of the word "is" had to be carefully parsed and the Clinton White House was under siege.
Obama hit back in an interview that aired Monday on "Good Morning America," saying the former president "has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling" and promising to "directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate."
For Obama, it's clearly an added burden to have to fight two Clintons instead of one. But at the same time, there may be benefits in having Bill Clinton take such a high-profile role in his wife's campaign that the missteps and disappointments of the Clinton years are inevitably recalled along with the successes. Whatever the net impact, there appears to be no plan for Bill Clinton to tone it down -- not with the nomination still in doubt. The Clintons don't much like losing.
So forget about the Bill Clinton we've known for the past eight years -- the one who finds friendship and common ground with fellow former president George H.W. Bush (a Republican, last I heard), who dedicates most of his time and energy to the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, who speaks eloquently about global citizenship, environmental stewardship and economic empowerment. Forget about the statesman who uses appropriately measured language when talking about transient political events, focusing instead on the broad sweep of human history. Forget about the apostle of brotherhood and understanding whose most recent book is titled, simply, "Giving." That Bill Clinton has left the building.
There's a battle to be fought against an upstart challenger who has the audacity to suggest that maybe the Clinton presidency, successful as it was in many ways, didn't change the world -- and that he, given the office, could do better. Some things, I guess, just can't be allowed. Bill Clinton obviously has decided that history can wait.
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
