from Senator Barbara Boxer ...

This morning, I received the following from California Senator Barbara Boxer which you may find at the link she provides below. It is heartening to see that members of Congress are calling for the release of a report, and at least attempting to stand up to a regime that has openly, and actively defied them for more than a half dozen years. We, as citizens, must support Senator Boxer, and other members of Congress who demand release of this report, as well as any, and all, information that evidences the failure of Iraq, misdeeds, or any high crimes and misdemeanors no matter where that trail leads us...


October 17, 2006

The Honorable James A. Baker III
Co-Chair
Iraq Study Group
1200 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Secretary Baker:

As co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, you have taken on thetremendous challenge of developing recommendations for a new course of action in Iraq. I am deeply appreciative of your willingness to serve our country once again.

Over the past several weeks, you have repeatedly said that theIraq Study Group would not provide an independent assessment on the situation in Iraq until after the November midterm elections. Given the critical need to change course on Iraq, I urge the study group to release its recommendations as soon as possible without any consideration to the political calendar.Indeed, imagine if you had a son or daughter in Iraq right now and knew that a change of course would have to wait due to politics while your child is a target in a hellish situation. Last year, the Senate voted 79-19 in favor of an amendment stating that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition" in Iraq. Instead, this year has seen the rapid escalation of death, suffering, and sectarian violence thatcould easily devolve into a full scale civil war.

It is clear that the Administration's continued insistence to "stay the course" with its failed policies is not a viable solution. Judging by recent interviews you have given in the press, it appears that the Iraq Study Group has made some initial judgments that would be a departure from the Administration's failed policies. If this is indeed the case, I urge you, in the strongest
Administration can see that the status quo is unacceptable.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

cc: The Honorable Lee Hamilton,
Co Chair

please go to: http://www.boxer.senate.gov To respond to this message, please click on the following link:http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/feedback.cfm . This link will take you to a webpage where you can respond

Can it be Dyslexia?

Why is it that "uniformed" always looks like "uninformed" to me?

from the "Joint..."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace (aka "Peter Pan") suggests that Rummy is hearing voices...


MIAMI (AFP) - The top US general defended the leadership of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying it is inspired by God."He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country,"said Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.



Didn't we read something somewhere about not taking the name of the Lord in vain? While they may not have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it looks like they found some dynamite dope!

hearing voices?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace (aka "Peter Pan") suggests that Rummy is hearing voices...


MIAMI (AFP) - The top US general defended the leadership of Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying it is inspired by God.

"He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country,"
said Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.



Didn't we read something somewhere about not taking the name of the Lord in vain?
Indeed, it looks like, while these guys never found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they found some dynamite dope!

no such thing...

There is no such thing as being an ex-New Yorker, only a dead one...

Why Is Karl Rove Smiling?

It was hard to miss the ear to ear grin on the face of Karl Rove, chief advisor to the president, in the Washington Post earlier this week as he paused for a photo-op with Mr. Bush. Why was he smiling? Can it be because unlike his friend, Scooter Libby, the vice president's top aide, Rove is off the hook in the Plame leak case on charges that he committed perjury, lied to investigators, and could well have been the one to expose the undercover CIA agent's identity which, by the way, is a felony? Apparently not. Republican party operatives say that Rove's current euphoria derives from his conviction that his party will only lose a maxium of 8 to 10 seats in November's midterm election, and will maintain control of both the House and Senate.

With a whomping 74% of the American people saying they're dissatisfied with Congress, according to a CNN poll, if Rove's party holds the reins for another 2 to 6 years, who knows, that number could soon grow to 100%.. Still, what can we expect from Congress? Can we expect them to stand up to a president run afoul of our Constitution, and international law? Can we expect them to begin a probe as to the legality of a war that is draining us morally, spiritually, squandering human life without purpose? What's more, can there ever be a purpose, or justification, for squandering human life? What do we expect from Congress? Do we expect them to vote down legislation that legitimizes abrogation of due process, habeas corpus, and the Magna Carta, as well as radically redefining once internationally-recognizable terms and concepts like torture? Can we expect them to stand up to a president who has the same ethos, and principles as any other neighborhood bully? Were it possible to bring back those who farmed under Russia's Peter the Great, those who were held at the infamous concentration camp at Babi Yar, or even those rolling around in the blood and entrails of ethnic cleansing under Milosevic, they might laugh at us, and think how hopelessly naive we are to think scruples, honor, and unflagging belief in those precepts upon which our nation was founded are anything more than theoretical goals, and they may be right. But, there's a grace period for naivete after which one is no longer naive, but criminally negligent, and, alas, our grace period is almost up.

Don't tell Karl Rove that as he might also be smiling because he knows, over the next few weeks, odds are good that North Korea will test another nuclear weapon putting "national security" squarely back on the table, making it a meat and potatoes issue on the plates of the American people while, at the same time, spoonfeeding us the pablum that any nation, or person, who deals with agents of terror, like Iran and Al Qaeda, must face "a grave consequence," as the president said yesterday on ABC news. Karl Rove's grin may best be summed up in those three magical words uttered by our president with respect to the outcome of potential North Korean aggression, "a grave consequence,"which suggest three other portentous words we've heard lots during recent months: "the October surprise." Looks like North Korea, and not Iran, might be the surprise that tips the scales in favor of the preemptive warriors, and great crusaders of the radical right. While many have been hoping for regime change in Washington,D.C., Rove, Bush, Cheney & Co. have been busily at work on "a grave consequence," paving the way for regime change in North Korea, for starters, and ensuring control over America's domestic and foreign policies for decades to come.

Arguably, the only way a grassroots, homegrown struggle for social justice, and a renaissance in representational government can occur is if the Democrats spoil the party for Rove, and Bush, take North Korea back from the Republicans, turn it around such that North Korea can only be viewed as proof of yet another failed foreign policy for the Bush administration, an exercise in bad judgment, as well as a noxious habit of making greed the default priority allowing Kim Jong to grow, and flex his nuclear biceps while we were out bombing Baghdad. So it may be that North Korea has cooked up our October surprise, and is working along with this administration to spoon feed us the pap that only American jihadists can protect us from attack.

not to change the subject, but...

Last Thursday night, I went to a book signing, and talk by former assistant and senior advisor to Bill Clinton, columnist for The Guardian of London, staff writer for "The New Yorker," and "The Washington Post," Sidney Blumenthal, who is currently a Senior Fellow at New York University of Law and Security. The party was graciously hosted by Teddi Winograd, mother of Marcy Winograd, president of the Progressive Democrats of America Los Angeles chapter, and recent candidate for Congress in the 36th District.

The soiree was to celebrate publication of Mr. Blumenthal's latest book, "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime," as well as to give members of the audience, many of whom were grass roots of PDA, a chance to discuss some of the crucial issues the book raises, such as the radical nature of what Blumenthal calls the Bush "regime," in terms of the role the president plays, as well as the precedent he sets for governing. As the author rightly observes, everything is turned upside down; the Bushies have become the extremists, revolutionaries, and, indeed, their country's Bolsheviks. Moreover, those of us, back in the late 60's who were speaking up for civil rights now find ourselves working to protect and defend the Bill of Rights, an enterprise formerly considered conservative.

But, among the most stunning arguments Blumenthal makes is that there is nothing random, or haphazard, about this administration's efforts to endow the executive branch with powers previously reserved for kings and deities, but instead it was Bush and Cheney's intention to deliberately transform the concept of the presidency, and governing in America, such that the president becomes the precedent.

What a compelling discussion the author generated with such probity, and elegance. More memorable still was the enthusiasm generated by a candid irreverence which one seldom expects to find especially from one who confesses to be among those insiders currently embedded in Washington, D.C. The dialogue got red hot when the subject of Iran came up with several sweaty, squirming hands lifted in the air, and members of the audience virtually jumping off their seats to ask the man who was among the closest to Bill Clinton of anyone whether or not he thought an invasion of Iran was imminent. I watched as Mr. Blumenthal took a deep breath, paused, then noted that, while there may be plans for regime change in Iran, as Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter claim, he didn't think it would happen before the 2008 election because, as he put it, "our troops have another engagement." And indeed they do! And those of us who want to see regime change in Washington had better not forget that.

Blumenthal was right to field the Iran question, and change the subject. It's irresponsible on the part of anyone who wants to see a changing of the guards, on election day, to raise the specter of invasion, and occupation of Iran when we're in the middle of a full-fledged war in neighboring Iraq, a war which has reportedly claimed the lives of more than 650,000 Iraqi civilians, as well as 3,000 American service men and women. Any effort to deflect attention away from a conflict which becomes increasingly more noxious, and injurious to the country we plundered in the name of exporting democracy will do serious damage not merely to the prospects of voting the ruling class out in the midterm election, but in the presidential election that follows.

While no rational person would deny substantial, and credible evidence that we're putting the infrastructure in place for another "preemptive strike," this time on Iran, to play the Iran card this close to one of the most important midterm elections this country has yet to see, and take the focus away from the omnipresent failure of a war in progress can only prove deadly to the Democrats in that it may well backfire, and result in voter apathy when it comes to the number one item on the foreign policy menu, namely a timetable for bringing our troops back from Iraq safely. What's more, our friends Joe and Alice, in Middle America, who are sitting anxiously on their sofa watching "Jeopardy" and waiting for their nephew's coffin to arrive on the next flight from Baghdad, don't give a rotting fig about Iran now. They're worried about whether their 23 year old son, Jimmy, will make it back in one piece. Any party that wants to bring peace to the planet can't afford to forget that. We must not forget that without a base, there can be no platform.

Clearly, whenever you hear Republicans, and/or key allies of the Bush administration concede that it's time to consider troop withdrawal that can only mean one thing; there are plans, in place, to move those troops somewhere else. To a Republican, more often than not, especially a neo-conservative Republican, troop withdrawal means troop redeployment. After all, those who have held the reins of government, for the past decade, have proven better than any who came before them that we are, as President Eisenhower once said, a "military industrial complex." But, even those who currently "occupy" the Oval Office aren't ready for the high stakes poker game invading Iran would entail. You can't do Monte Carlo on a Vegas budget. And, unless Alan Greenspan was stashing billions of dollars of defense money under his black belt, we don't have the cash for two major debacles, not simultaneously anyway, so it is that any move to wage war with Iran before the next presidential election, or until we pull out of Iraq, is very unlikely.

Mr. Blumenthal, in closing, suggested that those who surround this president need more than Nyquil to get to sleep these days. Don't let the apparent edginess of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney fool you. Make no mistake, Bush & Co. are more concerned about how they can maintain control after they've been voted out; that is, if they're voted out in 2008. And, Sidney Blumenthal is right to make the subject of his talks expansion of presidential powers, contempt of checks and balances, executive hubris, and not raise the bogey man of an attack on Iran; however menacing that may be, it's beside the point now. When they go to the polls in three weeks, people like Joe and Alice will be thinking about flesh and blood issues, and not nightmare scenarios, and unless there is solid proof of a clear and present danger, it's best to focus on the body bags, from Iraq, the Defense Department has been doing such a wonderful job of keeping out of the news for the past 3 years. Unless we want six more years, we'd better out Herod Herod, find the escape route, and change the subject fast.

Outsourcing the Death Penalty

On Tuesday morning, at the White House, your president will sign into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S-3930) which passed the Senate by nearly a 2 to 1 margin. The so-called "torture bill" does not preclude "alternative interrogation techniques" that include sleep deprivation, and waterboarding, as well as gives the executive branch the right to decide what constitutes torture. Moreover, this new legislation empowers the executive branch with the ability to hold detainees indefinitely without charge, and without remedy from the courts, thereby defying habeas corpus.

It is epecially important to consider the new powers granted to the commander-in-chief, and the military, in light of revelations that an American citizen of Iraqi descent, 53 year old Mohammed Munaf, who was tried by an Iraqi court, and convicted of aiding and abetting the kidnapping, in 2005, of 3 Romanian journalists, has been sentenced to die along with five Iraqi co-defendants. (NYT)

As first reported by the New York Times, Mr. Munaf, who became an American citizen in 2000, went to Iraq in March, 2005, to work with the Romanian journalists in the capacity of translator and guide. And, when the Iraqis kidnapped the journalists, Munaf was also held for nearly two months. When the reporters were freed, in late May, Mr. Munaf was detained on the grounds that he was complicit in the kidnapping. According to government sources, Mr. Munaf is alleged to have confessed to cooking up the plot to kidnap the 3 journalists in Iraq, and pretending to be a victim. However, his attorney, Jonathan Hafetz, insists that the confession was made under duress, an allegation which especially resonates in light of the Military Commissions Act which is about to be signed into law.

The Iraqi-born American citizen is currently being held by the American government, and his lawyers filed papers, last week, to prevent his transfer to the Iraq "arguing that his death sentence undermined one of the United States government's principal arguments for transferring him, namely that he would be in no danger of physical abuse in Iraqi custody." (NYT) Indeed, it would be gross incompetence were his counsel not to insist on challenging his coerced confession, as well as demanding answers as to why Munaf, an American citizen, is being held, tried, convicted, and sentenced by a foreign country, regardless of whether it happens to be his native land.

Moreover, there appears to be some controversy surrounding Munaf's current whereabouts. Some members of the government claim he is at Camp Cropper near the Baghdad airport, but the Justice Department says he is being held by "multinational forces." In a similar case, a federal judge rejected the Justice Department's assertion that an American was being held by a "multinational force," and yet another court called department claims that prisoners are not being held by the U.S. military "legalistic fiction." But, the Justice Department seems to think that Mr. Munaf's fears of facing torture, and beatings, should he be turned over to the government he fled a half dozen years ago are "speculative and based on news reports." The implication, then, is that an American captive who has been sentenced to death by an Iraqi court, which was strongarmed by our own military, has been watching too many horror movies!

Apart from the obvious, troubling questions about who is now holding Mohammed Munaf, and where, there are even more disturbing concerns. First, is an American citizen entitled to be held, and tried, according to American law, and not Iraqi, in his home country, and with a jury of his peers? Also, if he is, in fact, guilty of the offense for which he was convicted, is being an accomplice to kidnapping, especially one in which the hostages survive, a capital offense? If so, is it not up to the American government to hold, try, and execute him? More importantly, how is it that officials with the United States military are empowered such that they get to intervene, and demand an Iraqi judge convict, and sentence to death an American citizen? Who pulls the strings, and who makes the ruling--a judge in an Iraqi court, or the Justice Department? Do we not make a mockery of Iraqi jurisprudence when American military brass is allowed to manipulate the outcome and sentences of those who come before Iraqi courts?

In light of the the signing by the president tomorrow of the Military Commissions Act, and other staggering legislation that expands the executive branch, and military powers, in this country, it must be asked how it is that the United States government not only gets to outsource torture, but now the death penalty, with impunity, and without challenge from Congress, or the Supreme Court.

how's this for a cover-up?

Now that Congress is busy looking into what the Speaker of the House, and others connected with Mark Foley, knew and when they found out about his Internet cruising, why don't they look into today's revelation, by the International Herald Tribune and the Associated Press, that American servicemen shot a 50 year old British journalist, Terry Lloyd, in the back of the head in March of 2003, the early days of the Iraq war. Moreover, why don't esteemed members of Congress, and the attorney-general, investigate how it is that the first 15 minutes of video shot by U.S. servicemen from a neighboring tank, which would prove where those shots originated, reportedly have been erased?

What an outrage to learn of the execution-style shooting of Mr. Lloyd, a reporter for an independent British television station, who,unlike his American and British colleagues, was not embedded when he reported from Iraq. One can only wonder what he had stumbled upon, and what he would have reported were he allowed to do so. Further, one can only think of last week's cold-blooded assasination, in Moscow, of renowned investigative journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot dead in her apartment building, contract-style, and rumored to have been working on Russia's policy of torture with regard to Chechen detainees. What was Terry Lloyd working on, and was he silenced?

An inquest into the British journalist's death at the hands of U..S forces notes that Lloyd was driving with other ITN reporters and cameramen from Kuwait towards Iraq when he "was shot in the back by Iraqi troops who overtook his car, then died after U.S. fire hit a civilian minivan being used as an ambulance and struck him in the head." (AP) Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker, who wrote the inquest report, intends to ask the attorney general to investigate this matter, and bring those responsible to justice, but what happens when "those responsible" turn out to be heads of our own government? One wonders who will render justice when, as is the case with the Putin regime, those at the helm of our government are busy redefining what justice is.

"Terry Lloyd died following a gunshot wound to the head. The evidence this bullet was fired by the Americans is overwhelming...There is no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire," Deputy Coroner Walker says. As reported. Lloyd was shot "in the back of the head as he lay in the back of a makeshift ambulance, " (International Herald Tribune) A spokesperson for the Pentagon response to the alleged contract style killing, by our troops, is simply that: "The Department of Defense has never deliberately targeted noncombatants, including journalists." (AP) Does being shot in the back of the head while resting in an ambulance, no less, suggest a lack of deliberation to you? And, as an ITN cameraman, and colleague of Lloyd's, Daniel Demoustier, the only one to survive the rampant gunfire, says the inquest didn't clarify whether the bullet that killed Lloyd came from an American tank, or helicopter. Why would that matter? How can a bullet from a helicopter, or any vehicle not within closer range, hit somebody in the back of the head, expecially when he's in an ambulance? Moreover, if the forensics were strong enough to suggest that the shooting was an accident, why did the coroner rule that Lloyd's killing was "unlawful?"

Importantly, if the murder of this British journalist was not deliberate, as the Defense Department asserts, then why is it that the opening 15 minutes of footage of the incident taken by U.S. servicemen, and presented in court, were ostensibly deleted? And, if the killing was an accident, why wouldn't U.S. authorities allow American servicemen to testify at the inquest? Moreover, why is it that several submitted statements were ruled inadmissible? (AP) We must also ask why it is, too, that a leading European newspaper writes that "prosecution of U.S. service members seemed unlikely." (International Herald Tribune) Who is responsible for granting immunity to our troops, and can it be the same fellows who recently granted immunity to themselves by redacting the War Crimes Act with the Military Commission Act of 2006? While the widow of the slain journalist, Lynn Lloyd, is willing to give American servicemen the benefit of the doubt, one can't help but marvel at her description of a government that has "allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys in an area in which there were civilians traveling." (International Herald Tribune) That, folks, would be our government; those "trigger-happy cowboys" have, as commander-in-chief, our president, George W. Bush.

After a week-long inquest into Mr. Lloyd's murder, the Pentagon concludes that "its forces had followed proper rules of engagement." (AP) Indeed, it would seem that the Defense Department is now rewriting those "rules" to bend so far as to allow execution-style shootings. If, as recently reported, members of our armed forces are finding it more difficult to tell who the enemy is in Iraq maybe it's because our government has blurred the line of demarkation between good and evil such that it is brazenly obvious that the enemy is not "terror," but justice.

I'm sure we all want to know a bit more about what Mr. Lloyd was working on before he was silenced by a bullet to the back of his skull, and why it is that our government was, at best, ambiguous about whether the shots came from American servicemen, or Iraqis, a helicopter, or a tank. Given that evidence of intent on the part of our military was disallowed at the formal inquest into the killing, the only plausible explanation is that our government tried to cover-up the murder of a British journalist at the onset of the war in Iraq.

What does it say about our country when the head of the premiere global journalist organization, Aidan White of International Federation of Journalists, observes that "If this was murder, as the court suggests, and the United States is responsible, it certainly is a war crime." And, what does it say about the universal outcry against the execution-style slaying of a prominent Russian journalist, and calls for investigations, when the London-based National Union of Journalists calls the killing of 50 year old British television journalist, Terry Lloyd, by our own forces, "nothing short of a war crime."

Granted, some cover-ups are sexier than others, and some cover-ups have more teeth. Clearly, news of a foreign reporter's murder by members of our own military doesn't grab headlines, or entice the media, and talking heads of the blogosphere at large, to indulge in nonstop, and nauseatingly repetitive coverage as did the lascivious instant messages sent by a middle-aged elected official to a congressional page. But, those of us who stood in silent vigil, earlier this week, whether in New York, or Amsterdam, in remembrance of a slain Russian journalist, those of us who have called for an investigation of who, in the Kremlin, was behind the hit need to stop, look, and think about this: the European press, and human rights groups, are condemning our government in much the same way we condemn Putin, and his assault on free speech, and a free press. History will soon forget Mark Foley and his foibles. Our silence, on the other hand, can only be viewed as acquiescence.

Quote of the Day...

“Homogenization is good for milk, but bad for ideas”

-- Patric M. Verrone, President WGA, west






courtesy of Jonathan Rintels, Center for Creative Voices in Media

Insulting Ignorance

Out of Sweden today comes the announcement that Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish writer who recently stood trial for "insulting Turkishness," has been awarded this year's prestigious Nobel Prize for Literature. Pamuk was charged, last year, for telling a Swiss newspaper, in the winter of 2005, that his country was in denial about the massacre of Armenians during World War I, as well as recent guerrilla warfare in southeastern Turkey. Importantly, Pamuk's award is as much a victory for free speech as it is in recognition of the accomplishments of an important novelist.

Apart from a cool $1.4 million, Mr Pamuk receives the satisfaction, along with the rest of the world, of knowing that governments that try to stifle dissent, and freedom of expression can't prevail over the universal movement toward greater, and more open expression which is embodied by technological advances like the Internet. As you know, Harold Pinter, another prominent, outspoken critic of his government's participation in the war in Iraq, was the recipient of last year's Nobel Prize for Literature, so it is that this prize, like its sister the Nobel Peace Prize, is as much about exposing, and engaging oppression as about aesthetics.

The author of "Snow," and "My Name is Red" became the subject of a campaign by PEN American Center, and other champions of free speech, to whom he, and the rest of the world, are hugely indebted. For, if nothing else, granting this award to a novelist who was charged with "insulting Turkishness" is an insult to ignorance. One can hope that the forces of darkness, and secrecy will heed the international call for openness, and light.

now that we know how to go in reverse...

After being startled today, like everybody else, by eerily-familiar live footage of yet another airplane crashing into a Manhattan skyscraper, I couldn't help but think of some comments made, a week ago, by President Bush on the campaign trail in California when he argued that Democrats are weak on national security. "If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the president said, "it sounds like--it sounds like-- they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again." (AP) Amen, Mr. President, but will somebody explain how is it that the party that brought us "national security" and intelligence czars wasn't able to prevent an airplane from crashing, once again, into a building in Manhattan? Where have our tax dollars gone since 9/11? Wasn't the rationale behind the "war on terror," the USA Patriot Act, and the NSA domestic surveillance program about preventing this sort of thing?

Oh, and the president isn't the only one raising questions about the Democrats ability to keep us safe. If you listened to 2008 presidential hopeful, John McCain, at a news conference yesterday, you would have heard him accuse former President Bill Clinton, the husband of his prospective nemesis, of not taking the necessary steps, in the 1990's, to prevent North Korea from going nuclear. Apart from hearing the familiar, and tired, refrain about who will keep us safe that you've heard from Bush, and Cheney, you'd swear you were listening a re-run of Fox Sunday's Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton.

With virtuouso chutzpah, Senator Mc Cain, like Fox anchor Chris Wallace, stepped up to the plate to "remind" Mrs.. Clinton "and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies, that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure." (AP) Yes, yes, that may be Senator, but at least her husband's administration tried to negotiate with the Koreans which puts him one step ahead of the current team. As Senator Kennedy reminds us the president was AWOL when the North Korean ambassador came to the United States, and the ambassador was sent to New Mexico to meet with Bill Richardson "because he didn't have anyone else to talk to." (AP) It's hard to play one-handed poker.

Moreover, does Mr. McCain need to be reminded that it was on President Clinton's watch, back in 1994, that U.S. negotiators convinced North Korea to suspend its nuclear program, and allow U.N. inspections. Clearly, the Bush administration has been too busy flexing its preemptive muscle as if in a furtive effort to ward off erectile dysfunction, under the thinly guised pretext of spreading democracy, and thus unavailable to such trifling, and insignificant, measures as diplomatic talks to stop nuclear proliferation. What's more, thanks to the efforts of the administration Senator McCain so staunchly defends, we have more nuclear players now than we did when Mr. Clinton was commander-in-chief, and efforts to contain proliferation have come to a decisive halt.

Sooner or later, one suspected Senator McCain would show his hand, and indeed he has emerged as the state-of-the-art cheerleader for Bush that he's been all along. Still, it's very scary when a prospective presidential candidate distorts and twists history in ways we don't expect them to, at least not until they're elected. Under Clinton, McCain says, "The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military." Oh, and how many "millions of dollars" of food, welfare, and medical assistance have we "diverted" to our military which, after all, has only succeeded in expanding the Halliburton bottom line.

And, while he's at the business of pointing fingers,as a prominent member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, McCain should move that finger a bit closer to home, say, in the direction of the current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld who, you may recall was CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals from 1977-1985, and on the board of the ABB Group, the company that built the atomic reactor in North Korea. Mr. Rumsfeld was also head of a few notable pharmaceutical companies, G.D. Searle, Gilead Sciences, and worked with Bechtel, in Iraq, in the 1980's on a pipeline project. (Rath Foundation) Indeed, our illustrious Secretary of Defense reportedly even visited Baghdad, back in 1983, and discussed "topics of mutual interest" with the leader he recently worked diligently to depose, Saddam Hussein.

So, while some in Congress, and on Fox News, appear to be intent upon airing the previous administration's dirty laundry, it might not be a bad idea for them to pay a visit to the local dry cleaners first. Backing in to a tight space only works when one knows how to back out.. Now that we figured out how to go in reverse, it's time to learn how to go forward..

Update on Bella Maryonovsky

The below comes courtesy of friends at "Raw Story." For background information, please see my post "Operation Return to Sender" which appears here, and on The Huffington Post.

"Update on Bella Maryonovsky:

She is still being held, over a month now, no charges. She is at Monroe, which is not an immigration detention facility. It is a criminal facility. She has still gotten only 1 of her 4 heart medications and is not doing well. The family spent the weekend near the facility in order to be able to visit her. Per my last update, she finally got a hearing for Oct, 16. So we wait. That said, there is another new twist in this.

It appears that ICE is thinking of moving her to Atlanta, GA (along with some other women), before her hearing. I don't know why, so I cannot explain this madness. But if they move her out of state, then she will have to get a new attorney and the family will either have to move near the area or visit her only once a month. And if they move her to Atlanta, there is no word on when she will be given another hearing.

So the goal now is to stop the move by putting pressure on local elected officials and members of Congress, as well as ICE and the MSM to cover this. She tells us that there are women in there who are being deported who have kids. One woman in particular, who as a legal resident was busted with pot when she was younger. It was roughly twenty years ago, but she was scooped up in this and is being deported to Costa Rica, while her kids have been put into foster homes. Perhaps this is a new version of the Handmaiden's tale, I simply don't know. But to take the children, as though they had a right, and deport a legal resident, seems a bit like selective adoption. I may just be tired, but I cannot make sense of this.

Please, I beg you, please fight for these detainees who are American residents, some spending their entire life in this country, who are being picked up without charge, detained without charge, denied medical treatment, tormented, and having their children stolen from them. And for all of this supposed deportation, where the hell are the records of people being actually deported? I mean are we just saying we are going to deport them, but are actually stuffing them in detention facilities?

We must fight for these people, for Bella, or all of them. If we do not, who will fight for us, should it ever come to our own future nightmare?"

from AlterNet...

American Prison Camps Are on the Way
By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet Posted on October 9, 2006,
http://www.alternet.org/story/42458/...


The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks.Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."Bush & Co. has portrayed the bill as a tough way to deal with aliens to protect us against terrorism.

Frightened they might lose their majority in Congress in the November elections, the Republicans rammed the bill through Congress with little substantive debate.Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.

The bill also strips habeas corpus rights from detained aliens who have been declared enemy combatants. Congress has the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus only in times of rebellion or invasion. The habeas-stripping provision in the new bill is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will likely say so when the issue comes before it.Although more insidious, this law follows in the footsteps of other unnecessarily repressive legislation. In times of war and national crisis, the government has targeted immigrants and dissidents.

In 1798, the Federalist-led Congress, capitalizing on the fear of war, passed the four Alien and Sedition Acts to stifle dissent against the Federalist Party's political agenda. The Naturalization Act extended the time necessary for immigrants to reside in the U.S. because most immigrants sympathized with the Republicans.The Alien Enemies Act provided for the arrest, detention and deportation of male citizens of any foreign nation at war with the United States. Many of the 25,000 French citizens living in the U.S. could have been expelled had France and America gone to war, but this law was never used.

The Alien Friends Act authorized the deportation of any non-citizen suspected of endangering the security of the U.S. government; the law lasted only two years and no one was deported under it.The Sedition Act provided criminal penalties for any person who wrote, printed, published, or spoke anything "false, scandalous and malicious" with the intent to hold the government in "contempt or disrepute."

The Federalists argued it was necessary to suppress criticism of the government in time of war. The Republicans objected that the Sedition Act violated the First Amendment, which had become part of the Constitution seven years earlier. Employed exclusively against Republicans, the Sedition Act was used to target congressmen and newspaper editors who criticized President John Adams.Subsequent examples of laws passed and actions taken as a result of fear-mongering during periods of xenophobia are the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, the Red Scare following World War I, the forcible internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II, and the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (the Smith Act).

During the McCarthy period of the 1950s, in an effort to eradicate the perceived threat of communism, the government engaged in widespread illegal surveillance to threaten and silence anyone who had an unorthodox political viewpoint. Many people were jailed, blacklisted and lost their jobs. Thousands of lives were shattered as the FBI engaged in "red-baiting." One month after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft rushed the U.S.A. Patriot Act through a timid Congress.

The Patriot Act created a crime of domestic terrorism aimed at political activists who protest government policies, and set forth an ideological test for entry into the United States.In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the internment of Japanese and Japanese-American citizens in Korematsu v. United States. Justice Robert Jackson warned in his dissent that the ruling would "lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need."That day has come with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It provides the basis for the President to round-up both aliens and U.S. citizens he determines have given material support to terrorists. Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of undesirables.

In his 1928 dissent in Olmstead v. United States, Justice Louis Brandeis cautioned, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Seventy-three years later, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, speaking for a zealous President, warned Americans "they need to watch what they say, watch what they do."We can expect Bush to continue to exploit 9/11 to strip us of more of our liberties. Our constitutional right to dissent is in serious jeopardy. Benjamin Franklin's prescient warning should give us pause: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."


Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her new book, "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law," will be published in 2007 by PoliPointPress.

"Howl" turns 50 -- a celebration of Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, City Lights, and Free Speech

from City Lights Books in San Francisco comes the following announcement...


CITY LIGHTS & THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB CELEBRATE HOWL'S 50TH!----------------

-------Wednesday, November 15th, from 5:30-7 pm

In 1956, City Lights published Allen Ginsberg's Howl and Other Poems. Soon after, City Lights publisher & owner Lawrence Ferlinghetti and City Lights store manager Shigeyoshi Murao were arrested, charged with publishing and distributing "obscene material." What followed is one of the most important first-amendment battles of the 20th century, with City Lights emerging victorious. Allen Ginsberg became a house-hold name, City Lights was known worldwide, and the court decision set a crucial precedent for subsequent free speech battles.

Please join City Lights as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of Howl and Other Poems at a special event on Wednesday, November 15th, from 5:30- 7 pm, at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. Special Guests include: Marc Bamuthi Joseph, Artistic Director for Youth Speaks, reading from "Howl" followed by a panel discussion with Bill Morgan, editor of Howl on Trial: The Battle for Free Expression and author of the new biography, I Celebrate Myself: The Somewhat Private Life of Allen Ginsberg, Al Bendich, the attorney who successfully defended "Howl" at the original trial in 1957, Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director of the ACLU-NC, and Jason Shinder, Editor of Howl: Fifty Years Later.

The Club is located at 595 Market St, San Francisco, 94105.Get more info and advance tickets here: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/ & (415) 597-670015654005.htm






Yes, indeed, the publication of Ginsberg's poem "Howl" was "one of the most important first amendment battles of the twentieth century." That said, the road to publishing "Howl" was paved by precedent setting publication of James Joyce's great "Ulysses," and the brave sacrifices, struggles, and triumphs of Mr. Joyce, of course, as well as Sylvia Beach, as it wasn't until 1933 that "Ulysses" was allowed into the U.S., thanks to the landmark ruling of Judge Woolsey.

One wonders, given the current climate or repression and censorship, if what is widely regarded as the greatest novel in the English language would be allowed on our shores today. Alas, the fight to protect and preserve the First Amendment, my friends, is in its infancy.

here's a scandal for you...

For those who want something you can sink your teeth into, here's a scandal for you...

How is it that this president took us into Iraq when we have a lunatic like Kim Jong in North Korea playing ping pong with Japan, and China over threats to flex his newfound nuclear muscle, yet another in Iran fine tuning his arsenal, and another mass murderer hanging out in a cave somewhere outside Pakistan? What's more, how is it that Mah Jong and bin Laden are free to roam the cabin while a deposed, and largely irrelevant dictator, Saddam, has been disappeared by the American criminal justice system which has managed, simultaneously to also infect Iraq, Israel, and what's left of the "civilized" world?

The larger question, of course, is who cares about nuclear holocaust when we have elected officials who can't keep it in their laptop, and congressional "no fly" zones?

The Truth and Anna P.

On Thursday, Bob Schieffer, renowned CBS newsman who has covered events in D.C. for more than three decades, said that he can't recall "a time when it's been more challenging for journalists." Schieffer was referring, of course, to the Bush administration's program of domestic surveillance, as well as a rash of frivolous grand jury subpoenas, over the past five years, coercing journalists to give up their confidential sources. Schieffer is right. There is no way news of extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, and Abu Ghraib would reach our shores were it not for reporters. The press, in this country, has acted as the watchdog for governmental transgressions; indeed, were it not for two Washington Post reporters, Richard Nixon might not have been forced to resign.

Less than 36 hours after Bob Schieffer's speech, a 48 year old celebrated investigative journalist in Russia, Anna Politkovskaya, who had been working copiously to expose the travesties of her government, under Vladimir Putin, was shot dead in the elevator of her apartment building in Moscow. Ms. Politkovskaya had received nearly a dozen awards from human rights, and international journalist groups such as Reporters without Borders, over the years, for her exemplary work exposing, and documenting, the slaughter, torture, and harassment of civilians by Russian soldiers in Chechnya. "People sometimes pay with their lives for saying out loud what they think," Ms. Politkovskyaya has been quoted as saying. (AP) Clearly, too, they pay the ultimate price for writing what they think as a book that she recently wrote which takes issue with Putin's campaign against "terror" in Chechnya, and reveals "widespread abuse of civilians by government troops" (AP) surely didn't win her any fans among Moscow's military elite.

This was not the first attempt on the life of this 48 year old mother of two. Back in 2004, she experienced symptoms of food poisoning after drinking tea during a Moscow flight to south Russia where she was covering a hostage crisis in a school. A few years before this incident, she reportedly received e-mail death threats seeking to avenge the reputation of a member of Russian law enforcement who she accused of torturing civilians. (AP) Still, nothing deterred her from her lifelong commitment to investigating, and exposing the travesties visited upon the Russian people by their government.

Anna P. was one of the few allowed into a theatre in Moscow held hostage by Chechen rebels, back in 2002, where she tried to negotiate with the militants. The fact that many of those who were in the theatre, at the time, later succumbed to gas poisoning served as the focus of much of her most recent investigative work, as well as her ongoing inquiry into the Putin regime's campaign of torture against Chechen "terrorists."

Nearly two dozen journalists have been killed in Russia over the past 8 years, many in Chechnya, making Russia among the most dangerous countries for journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. (AP) Clearly, the syllabus for Journalism 101 doesn't include serving in a war, an undeclared war, no less, against the free flow of information, and a free press.

Human Rights Watch, in a report more than two years ago, notes that of the seven Russian detainees, at Guantanamo Bay, who were released by the U.S. government, six urged the U.S. not to release them saying they were afraid they'd be "tortured, or mistreated" when they got back home. "They were right," asserts HRW, "All seven have been variously harassed, detained, mistreated, and beaten since they set foot on Russian soil. Two have been convicted of terrorism after highly irregular trials. One was tortured in pre-trial detention. Three are in hiding after campaigns of intimidation and harassment by Russian law enforcement authorities." So, given how the Russian government harasses its citizens, it should come as no surprise how it treats one who exposes its campaign of beating, and intimidation of civilians in Chechnya.

Over the past 50 years, much of the world has the words "made in the USA" stamped all over it, which may explain why the Cold War ended not with a bang, but a whimper. Since the Berlin Wall came down, and the U.S.S.R was dissolved, a dreadful mimesis has maimed, and forever defaced, many autonomous nations. Only dogs bark at their own reflection in the mirror. Monsters often embrace what they see that most resembles themselves, and do the best they can to destroy anything that differs. Ineluctably, perhaps, but inevitably nonetheless, America has spread her campaign of fear, and secrecy globally.

So, while Russian prosecutors open an investigation into who, or what, killed this prominent reporter, and while they concede that "the killing could be linked to her work," (AP) it is up to those of us who care about getting the truth out to continue Anna Politkovskaya's mission to uncover those crimes that come within the parameters of normal governmental practice. We, in this country, can best do justice to her memory, as well as the memory of all those who keep us informed in these dark times, by acknowledging universally that torture must not be allowed to breed under the badge of terror, and demanding that crimes against journalists be seen, and punished, as crimes against humanity.

Anna Politkovskaya was a foot soldier in the campaign for truth, a free press, and a multidimensional view of the world as was Daniel Pearl, and others who will have received no accolades, and who won't be remembered except perhaps as a footnote in a history book yet to be written, thus it is up to each and every one of us to celebrate members of the press, one and all.

Outing Jeb...

Forget Mark Foley, the president's brother appears to have taken a fancy to hanging out in closets lately, too. As the AP reports, while taking his daily constitutional (no pun intended)walk on the campaign trail in Pittsburgh, Florida governor, and presidential brother, Jeb Bush, came across a horde of protestors on his way to a high stakes fundraiser for Pennsylvania's incumbent Republican senator, Rick Santorum.

A startled, and apparently unprepared, Bush, when confronted by this virulent group of "anti-Republican" demonstrators, which included rank and file members of United Steelworkers union, as well as an anti-war group, sought refuge. Indeed, word has it that the Pittsburgh protestors were so in his face that local law enforcement felt compelled to use stun guns to subdue a few of them, and the first brother, sensing that he was in color code orange country, took cover in the supply closet of a subway station to avoid the crowd.

As if hiding in a closet weren't enough, Bush reportedly also blew a kiss to an antiwar protestor who suggested that he go back where he came from. Hmmmm...one can only wonder what his ultra-conservative buddy, the Pennsylvania senator, must have said when he found out his key endorser would rather be in the closet than face-off against a bunch of left wing commie steelworkers.

Maybe that's where we could find his famous brother, the president, back in the Vietnam days, in some closet in Texas instead of flying aircraft in the national guard. And wouldn't the world be a much safer, and saner place if the president chose to continue to hide instead of antagonizing half the planet with his in-your-face rhetoric?

And, oh, if only we could be a fly on the bathroom wall of the posh Duquesne Club, where Friday's fundraiser was held,.so we coould hear the good senator''s response when he was told that his favorite scrabble buddy, Jeb Bush, took to cowering inside subway supply closets, and blowing kisses at anti-war protestors.. How "Kiss of the Spider Woman," really!

Consider the irony, after all, in that it was Rick Santorum, back in 2003, when discussing a high court battle over sodomy who declared: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." (AP) Well, if nothing else, Santorum can find some consolation in knowing that Jeb kept the closet warm for him.

an excerpt from "America's Anti-Torture Tradition," Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The below excerpt was posted as a comment on a piece I wrote, "in time for Columbus Day," which appears on Huffington Post. It is from an article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. , from 2005, which appeared in The Los Angeles Times:


"George Washington, dead on point. "In 1776," wrote historian David Hackett Fischer in "Washington's Crossing," "American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements ... was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution." After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting.

In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren.... Provide everything necessary for them on the road."

America's Anti-Torture TraditionDecember 17, 2005 Los Angeles Times Robert F. Kennedy Jr.http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1217-30.htm...

sense of direction...

Say what you will about him, while Christopher Columbus had a bad sense of direction in having mistaken America for India, this president demonstrated an even worse one when he brought us to Iraq.

No Fly List

Too bad somebody in "Homeland Security" didn't think to put Mark Foley on a "no fly" list...

In time for Columbus Day...

comes word, from Camp Pendleton, of a two page sworn affidavit sent this week to the Defense Department by Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, and reported by the Associated Press that got word of these allegations from a sergeant in the Marines that "striking detainees," at the controversial naval base in Cuba, is "common practice."

There are calls for an investigation into these charges which first surfaced from a claim by a paralegal who met several off duty guards at a bar, late last month, who boasted of such barbaric practices as banging detainees' heads against cell doors, depriving them of water, and prohibiting customary privileges without cause. As if that's not enough, the Marine sergeant also went so far as to describe the guards as sitting at the bar laughing while telling stories of beating Gitmo prisoners. Additionally, several guards bragged of "punching in the face" men in their custody. (AP)

Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, a "defense coordinator" for the Marine Corps., (AP) has called for a formal Defense Department inquiry into these allegations of abuse which he says are not only "offensive," but in violation of "United States and international law." Ahem...I'll say it once again, a high-ranking member of the Marine Corps. now suggests that the inhuman, and degrading actions of a group of marines, who happened to be caught confessing to their abusive practices while under the influence ,and whose actions are being described as commonplace, states, without equivocation, that these acts violate United States and international law.

Guantanamo Bay is now home to more than 400 so-called "enemy combatants" some of whom, over the past several months, have committed suicide; many of whom have engaged in massive hunger strikes, and only a handful of whom have been charged with criminal activity. The report that alleges guards boast of routine, senseless beatings was presented to the Department of Defense inspector general. While there are high profile Navy officers already stepping forward, and pledging to cooperate fully with this stunning investigation into what appear to be routine beatings for the hell of it, one wonders if the Joint Task Force promise to enforce "the safe and humane care and custody of detained enemy combatants" (AP) is little more than a bandaid on a wound that requires a tourniquet.

As Columbus Day approaches, one wonders what would our founding fathers say were they to learn about secret prisons, "enemy combatants," waterboarding, and routine beating of prisoners held only hundreds of miles away from Miami? If nothing else, Columbus Day is celebration of leadership, however misguided, thus it is appropriate to ask where were those "in command" when their subordinates engaged in these wanton, and criminal acts?

Surely, no rational person would believe, for a minute, that a group of several off duty guards at Camp Pendleton would openly describe, and relish these disgusting beatings to a total stranger in a bar without one commissioned officer being aware of them. Can it be that those in command look the other way when this abuse is taking place? If so, then these sergeants, lieutenants, and any officer who knew about these abuses must be held accountable. If we can expect the Speaker of the House to step down because of a cover up involving a member of Congress, then why, in the hell, don't we demand the same from our armed forces!

Happy Birthday Fox News...

The below comes courtesy of Danny Schecter, and Newsdissector...

Fox News: Ten Years of Infamy HAPPY BIRTHDAY MR AILESNEW JUICY DETAILS, SEX SEX SEX, UGH!FAIR LAMBASTS NEWS HOUR (AGAIN!)Last night I was writing from the inside of an airplane in flight. Tonight, I am stuck on a runway heading to Detroit. We have been here for an hour and a half. My night is blown along with my connection. This whole air travel thing which was so exciting for me back in the day, is now an excuciating ordeal. The security people are testy and overzealous treating toiletries as akin to terrorists. We all permit their bullting and invasive inspections as in our best interest. I see it as a job creation program and the front face of uniformed fascism treating us all as sheep. The absurdity or it all will become clearer in the years to come.I am told that today is the tenth anniversary of an institution that has demonstrated the fine art of fusing news and propaganda. Fox News has been with us for a decade with its very presence not only polluting our political environment but moving all the other networks to the right.I was at their opening party. Somehow I ‘Made” the list with a fancy invite signed by Rupert himself. We wanted to shoot it but in a portend of things to come, our cameras were not allowed.One of our interns stood outside 12ll Sixth Avenue, behind a security cordon trying to videotape all the VIPS who trooped in to honor an emerging media power and genuflect to the mogul who ran the NY Post.

It was jammed. The offices,just down the block from the late and lamented Globalvision HQ, had, according to the architect I chatted with, been built in just 16 weeks. The equipment was state of the Art, and Roger Ailes, ruled the roost as if he was a legitimate newsman and not a GOP ad man and operative dispatched to wage a media war.\n\nRudy was there along with a gaggle of right wing pols. But there were others as well like Geraldo Rivera who was sniffing around for a new home which would soon welcome him. Walter Crronkite walked through as did Barbara Walters. I had a sense that something very big was about to happen TO TV News but I was not prepared for what did happen.\n\nWhat seemed clear was that the Fox News Channel was not about news, but rather about promoting one way of looking at news, using news. It was a blend of right-wing talk radio, “hot” motormouth ideologue-“personalities” and patriotic packaging with friendly blonds and lots of bombast. It was formula driven as one of it program consultants—who, ironically had formerly worked for the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour on PBS—explained to me. It was run in a top down way with a message of the day discipline as t he film OUTFOXED and others explained.

It was designed as “good TV” with the Fox and Friends Morning Show in the AM and Bill O’Reilly, who had worked for ABC and “A Current Affair” batting cleanup. His personal was deliberately exaggerated as if netywork was aping themost popular format on cable—wrestling—with its cartoon performers all following a script built around conflict, good guys and bad, and lots of action.\n\nI wrote about Foc’s birth and has tracked its role in accelerating the death of TV News. My book The More You Watch, The Less You Know has a chapter, “I. Rupert” that chronicles the rise of Murdochism in tekevision while my lastest, “The Death of Media and the Fight for Democracy”assesses the consequences.

For more on what it was like in the early days, read Jeff Cohen’s new book Cable News Confidential about his experiences there. Like many I was startled when the founder of FAIR—soon to mark its 20th anniversary was allowed on the air. Or when I was invited on with O’ Reilly or Sean Hannity. But I realized it was all part of staging food fights as a way to annoy liberals and build a right wing following. It was never aboit news—and still isn’t.",1]

It was jammed. The offices,just down the block from the late and lamented Globalvision HQ, had, according to the architect I chatted with, been built in just 16 weeks. The equipment was state of the Art, and Roger Ailes, ruled the roost as if he was a legitimate newsman and not a GOP ad man and operative dispatched to wage a media war.Rudy was there along with a gaggle of right wing pols. But there were others as well like Geraldo Rivera who was sniffing around for a new home which would soon welcome him. Walter Crronkite walked through as did Barbara Walters. I had a sense that something very big was about to happen TO TV News but I was not prepared for what did happen.What seemed clear was that the Fox News Channel was not about news, but rather about promoting one way of looking at news, using news. It was a blend of right-wing talk radio, “hot” motormouth ideologue-“personalities” and patriotic packaging with friendly blonds and lots of bombast. It was formula driven as one of it program consultants—who, ironically had formerly worked for the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour on PBS—explained to me. It was run in a top down way with a message of the day discipline as t he film OUTFOXED and others explained. It was designed as “good TV” with the Fox and Friends Morning Show in the AM and Bill O’Reilly, who had worked for ABC and “A Current Affair” batting cleanup. His personal was deliberately exaggerated as if netywork was aping themost popular format on cable—wrestling—with its cartoon performers all following a script built around conflict, good guys and bad, and lots of action.I wrote about Foc’s birth and has tracked its role in accelerating the death of TV News. My book The More You Watch, The Less You Know has a chapter, “I. Rupert” that chronicles the rise of Murdochism in tekevision while my lastest, “The Death of Media and the Fight for Democracy”assesses the consequences.For more on what it was like in the early days, read Jeff Cohen’s new book Cable News Confidential about his experiences there. Like many I was startled when the founder of FAIR—soon to mark its 20th anniversary was allowed on the air. Or when I was invited on with O’ Reilly or Sean Hannity. But I realized it was all part of staging food fights as a way to annoy liberals and build a right wing following. It was never aboit news—and still isn’t.

Fox Topper Roger Ailes seems to be looking forward to covering the end of the world:
There were deeper and more disturbing repercussions [to our having seen the towers fall on live TV], geopolitically and, to many, spiritually. "The implications from a television standpoint," says Roger Ailes, chairman of FOX News and FOX Television Stations, "are simply that: When the end of the world comes, we\'ll be able to cover it live until the last camera goes out. I believe I mean it literally. If you can witness something like [9/11] by two billion people, live, then there's nothing that can\'t be covered. And if we get into a world war, with nuclear weapons, I assume we\'ll be covering it live."

That foxy quote is from a new book WATCHING THE WORLD CHANGE: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11 edited by David Friend Can’t wait, can you?

Only Temporary?

A federal appeals court today gave permission to the Bush administration to continue its domestic surveillance program while awaiting a definitive ruling as to whether or not its much-maligned spying program is even constitutional.

As the AP has just reported, the decision of the three judge panel was unanimous, and came without explanation. Do we need an explanation as to why a patently illegal act should be allowed to continue while an appeals court decides its fate? I think so. Do we need an explanation as to why this president, or any president gets to put the Bill of Rights on life support, and jeopardize those values for which not one, but several generations of American service men and women have given their lives?

The government's argument to the court is that "the country will be more vulnerable to a terrorist attack" without the ability to monitor overseas electronic transmissions, and phone calls to or from the United States by alleged "terrorists," or anyone this president, and the State Department, believes to be "a terrorist." Ironically, it was at the urging, and insistence of the Justice Department that the appeals court allowed the program to remain in place while its legality is debated, a debate that will, more than likely, take several months. As we've seen from the war in Iraq, lots of damage can be done in several months. Nevertheless, this administration is on a loose leash, and was just given a free pass to continue its ongoing campaign, in violation of FISA, to pry, with impunity and with no oversight, into the personal phone records, and missives, of thousands of American citizens.

About six weeks ago, as you recall, a U.S. district judge in Detroit, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, ruled the Bush domestic spying program unconstitutional in that it "violates the right to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers" (AP) granted by the Constitution,but who needs "free speech and privacy and separation of powers?" Who needs accountabilty, either? Clearly not "we the people" who are too busy standing by watching the decimation of our civil liberties, as well as an ongoing campaign against dissent, while we do absolutely nothing.

Lately, we have heard speeches by our attorney general who seeks to tweak established, and time-honored definitions of torture such that hitherto unthinkable practices are now state sanctioned. And while it may be difficult, we must process, too, the fact that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by Congress a bit more than a week ago, grants immunity from war crimes charges to this president, and other members of an administration that has orchestrated, and delivered, some of the most heinous, and hateful war crimes in the history of the industrialized world.

While the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to allow this administration's warrantless spying program is "only temporary," one wonders if the aftermath of acquiescing to executive branch bullying, and the recent request from Attorney-General Gonzales for "judicial humility" will be temporary, too, or if the courts are starting to buckle under the weight of the notion of a "unitary executive branch."

Who was it said that the commander-in-chief is commander of the military only, and not of the country? Happily, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to stop this program which puts in jeopardy the work of many scholars, lawyers, and journalists whose international phone calls are being routinely intercepted, but we can hardly breathe easier for the hard work of one organization. It's time for all of us to own this government, lock, stock, and barrel, and take personal responsibility for its high crimes and misdemeanors just as it's time for members of the Supreme Court to do as Congress has, and not allow a runaway rogue emperor to wipe out more than 200 years of American jurisprudence, as well as 500 years of international law.

Dr. Dean to the rescue...

Today, President Bush argued that Democrats have a "softer side" when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, responded to the president's boast that his party has more staying power by saying:
"What's softer than giving up the hunt for Osama bin Laden and ignoring the 16 intelligence agencies who told him that the war in Iraq is making us less safe at home and around the world? It's time for the truth. All the tough talk in the world cannot hide the fact that President Bush and his GOP Congress's bad decisions have hurt America's security."

Indeed, we agree with Howard Dean, though it would certainly appear as if Republicans have a much harder, and stiffer approach; at least, from reading Rep. Foley's e-mails. Clearly, nobody can ever accuse this administration of having a flaccid foreign policy. In fact, if nothing else, the past six years with Bush, Cheney, and Rummy at the helm have shown that even the defense department is capable of overdosing on Viagra.

oh, and here's another one...

Here's another question for you: now that Mark Foley has caused such a stir, does anyone remember Jack Abramoff. Or, more to the point, does anyone care about Jack Abramoff, and his misadventures with the White House?. Last week, a congressional report was scheduled to be released that confirms "hundreds of contacts between the White House and the now disgraced Abramoff and his colleagues" including nearly 100 with the president's right hand, Karl Rove. (LA Times)

With all the fuss and focus on e-mails and instant messages sent by a Florida congressman to an underaged male page, nobody seems to have noticed the findings of a report by the House Government Reform Committee which comes after scrutiny of no fewer than "14,000 pages of e-mails and other documents obtained from Abramoff's law firm" that document that the fallen lobbyist had 400 contacts with Bush's inner circle between 2001 and 2004. (LA Times).

Capping their months' long investigation by the Republican-controlled House, the report offers "an unusually detailed glimpse into a sordid subculture of fraud and attempted influence peddling." (LAT) Indeed, but who cares about a "sordid subculture" that tries to corrupt, subvert, and buy elections when we have more captivating "sordid," and salacious things to contemplate, and salivate over, like an attempted seduction in cyberspace,

Yes, yes, yes, instant messaging 16 year old boys is scandalous, and in this land founded, and peopled, by card-carrying Puritans, one is not at all surprised that the corruption that gets the most spin is the kind that sells the most newspapers. But think about this for a minute: this entire Foley debacle has managed to deflect much-needed attention away from the crucial disclosure of irrefutable evidence that this president lied about his acquaintance with Jumping Jack... why isn't anyone talking about that. And, more importantly, why is the Democratic Party sitting on its hands and allowing the Repugs to manipulate what this country will, and will not, talk about only weeks before a critical election? Once again, the Republicans have stolen the ball, and are trying to make it to home base.

Question of the Day...

How many Puritans does it take to change a lightbulb? As many as it takes to fix an election....

rancid complacency ...

Revelations today, from the Washington Post, that then National Security Advisor, Condeleezza Rice, was apprised by former head of the CIA, George Tenet, of the real and present danger of an imminent Al Qaeda hit, only 2 months before 9/11, and that her response was less than inspired, raises the following ineluctable, but inevitable question: can it be that the level of rancid complacency this administration has consistently demonstrated, from the outset, is tantamount to complicity with those acts most heinous to the safety, and stability of these United States?

"Operation Return to Sender"

In South Florida, not far from where Rep. Foley sent those notorious e-mails, a 30 year old Ukranian woman who, for the purpose of this article, will be called "B.M.," was arrested, two weeks ago, when she showed up at a local immigration office to update her green card papers. A legal alien resident of Florida, she is scheduled to be transferred soon to Krome Detention Center, outside Miami, and possibly deported back to her native Ukraine. Her arrest comes under a new immigration program called "Operation Return to Sender," and in the wake of new legislation passed, last week, by the Bush administration all but suspending habeas corpus for "enemy combatants.

The fact that this administration is using a pernicious new program to revoke the right to due process of those on our shores legally is egregious, and egregiously ignored by our legislators and media. As first reported by "the Raw Story," In a press release recently, Homeland Defense Secretary Michael Chertoff described "Operation Return to Sender" as a "tough interior enforcement strategy that seeks to catch and deport criminal aliens, increase worksite enforcement, and crack down hard on the criminal infrastructure that perpetuates illegal immigration." Chertoff further contends that the "fugitives captured in this operation threatened public safety in hundreds of neighborhoods and communities around the country." Notably, B.M. currently works as a recruiter placing engineers in positions nationwide with salaries averaging $150,000.

To suggest that an executive recruiter poses a threat to "public safety" is ludicrous. Equally absurd, and menacing to public safety in the largest possible sense, is news that the Ukranian woman has yet to be told the charges for which she is being held, not given notice that she was expected to appear before the Immigration and Custom Enforcement officers, nor told that she was subject to arrest and detention under this new "Return to Sender" program. Had B.M> not gone to her local immigration office for a routine green card update, it's entirely possible that she wouldn't be facing imminent detention in a holding cell outside Miami.

It appears that the most likely cause for flagging her file is that, back in 1989, "M" was convicted of a crime which was then not punishable by deportation. Laws passed in the 1990's that have been applied retroactively make her crime a deportable offense, according to Michael Keegan, a spokesman for the I.C.E. in Washington, D.C. However, immigration expert, and attorney, Mark Levey, argues that "she is nonetheless eligible for bond and for relief from removal based on her good character." ("Raw Story") We understand that the concept of "good character" is one that increasingly becomes more and more alien to members of the current administration, but when he was asked why she is only being arrested, detained, and on her way to being deported now, two decades later, I.C.E. spokesman Keegan responded by boasting about how much more effective I.C.E. is than its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Indeed, and the Gestapo would be even more efficient.

Many of us were appalled, last week, by Congress' passage of new laws dealing with torture, treatment of detainees, and the implied suspension of habeas corpus. Forget "enemy combatants" being deprived of due process, according to Gino Sedikov, Maryanovsky's attorney, thousands of immigrants now currently sit in jails and detention centers, throughout the United States, with no hope for a review of the charges that brought them there.

Larisa Alexandrovna, managing news editor of "Raw Story," who is personally acquained with B.M. and her case, thinks it strange that in South Florida "where immigration targets are usually Cuban, South American, and Haitian" that a Ukranian Jew would be "arrested, held without charge, and her file goes missing," but she also finds it "odd that thousands of people are being swept up in these raids, we don't know their actual citizenship status, they are disappeared and held in detention facilities, and no one notices."

Arguably, it's even stranger that the mainstream press, and media, in this country have paid little, or no attention at all to "B.M's" story, and that of the many thousands who are currently being held without charge, and without legal recourse, as well as deported.We must not stand by and watch the wanton, and arbitrary suspension of due process in our own backyards, and members of our community, many of whom are legal aliens, have their constitutional rights suspended. This is not about "enemy combatants" anymore, it is about anyone this administration opts to target in its "Operation Return to Sender."

One can say something glib here like "let's return to sender, in November, all those who have compromised our national security in the name of protecting it, but sad to say, it may take more than one or two elections, more like one or two generations, to reverse the damage this administration's toxic legislation has done to our international credibility, and our moral fabric.

Good news from Reuters by way of Yahoo News...

U.S. terrorism trials face court challenges

By James Vicini Sat Sep 30, 9:26 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New military trial rules for terrorism suspects that
President George W. Bush' President George W. Bush endorsed and Congress approved will draw vigorous court challenges and could be struck down for violating rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, critics and legal experts said.
The legal battle will likely be ultimately decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court, which could be troubled the rules unconstitutionally restrict the suspects' rights, they said.
They cited the bill's provisions that strip foreign suspects of the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts, the broad definition of enemy combatants and what they described as unfair rules for military trials, including some use of hearsay and coerced evidence.

"I have no doubt that this is headed for the Supreme Court. Once again, the administration has overreached, and that makes it more likely that the court will strike it down," Stanford University law professor Jenny Martinez said.
"It allows the use of coerced evidence, which our laws have rejected since the founding of this country. It also denies noncitizens, including those in the U.S., access to court for fundamental human rights violations like torture," she said.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse defended the legislation as "plainly constitutional" and denied it foreclosed all judicial review.

'FAIR AND EFFECTIVE TRIALS'
"The military commissions established under the act provide the accused with the fundamental rights that will ensure fair and effective trials that fully satisfy all applicable standards under the Geneva Convention and our Constitution," he said.
The Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote on June 29, struck down as illegal Bush's original system of military trials established after the September 11 attacks for prisoners at the
U.S. Navy'U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The ruling said the administration could either rely on the traditional U.S. court-martial system or seek congressional approval of rules to prosecute and interrogate the prisoners. The issue has become a major political battle before the November 7 elections in which control of Congress is at stake.

Democrats and even some Republican lawmakers said taking away the prisoners' right to have habeas corpus hearings in federal court was unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. The experts agreed.
"I believe that the court will conclude that the habeas- stripping provision is unconstitutional," said Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington attorney and military law expert who is president of the National Institute of Military Justice.
The bill expands the definition of "enemy combatants" to those who provide weapons, money and other support to terrorist groups. It defines conspiracy as a war crime, although four Supreme Court members in the majority in June said it was not a war crime.
"Just because Congress puts a stamp of approval on something, it does not necessarily mean it will pass constitutional muster before the Supreme Court," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor and executive director at its Center on Law Ethics and National Security. He predicted the legality of the new rules would be a close issue for the courts. At the Supreme Court, it could come down to Justice
Anthony Kennedy Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote with four liberals and four conservatives.

Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, vowed to challenge the removal of the habeas corpus rights.
Ratner said such an opportunity could arise when the administration moves to dismiss pending Guantanamo cases in order to apply the new rules. Defense lawyers could then respond by challenging the rules' constitutionality.

amen...one can only hope that the Supreme Court that awarded the presidency to Mr. Bush in 2000, the same court that this president has tried to load with likeminded conservatives will indeed restore much-needed oversight to a runaway executive branch and provide, in the best sense of the phrase, poetic justice...

The Smoking Shorts....

The Democrats may have found the way to win back the Senate from those whose campaign for "family values" has just hit a major speed bump. As you know, Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley resigned from Congress yesterday after the discovery of some e-mails he wrote to a former teenage male page. One much publicized Foley missive to the 16 year old former congressional page asks: "You in your boxers, too? Well, strip down and get naked." This isn't the first instance of congressional impropriety. In 1983, two members of the House were censured for their dalliances with teenage pages. (AP) But, as the president likes to remind us, that was before 9/11, and with FCC, as well as governmental emphasis on "indecency fines," this could well be the biggest boon for a Democratic takeover of Congress we've ever seen, that is, if the Dems take a lesson from Bill Clinton, and start speaking up.

There is more than a little irony in the fact that the suggestive e-mail was sent from the 52 year old congressman who represents Palm Beach County, also presides over the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, and has been actively engaged in efforts to eradicate Internet child pornography. Further, it was Rep. Foley who asserted that "We track library books better than we do sexual predators," a statement which, no doubt, has come back to haunt him today.

This is not about the congressman's sexuality, or his attempts to seduce young boys; this is about his duplicity, and the hypocrisy of the party he represents. Efforts to sensationalize whatever small glimmer of lust one can uncover (no pun intended) in the electronic conveyances are tangential. Our main concern must be not merely an attempt to compromise the innocence, and virtue of an underaged congressional page, but the ongoing politics of deception practiced by those who tell us that they want to "edit" out certain salacious words from a T.V. sitcom while, at the same time, bolstering reelection campaigns of those who send "horny" instant messages to our teenagers. Just as President Clinton is said to have been impeached not because of an inappropriate sex act in the Oval Office, Rep. Mark Foley must step down not because he wrote a few quasi-erotic missives to a former 16 year old page, but because he egregiously misrepresented, and lied to his electorate about his core values.

That said, in an age when many are quick to use the word "devil," few are willing to play the role of devil's advocate, so allow me. Hanging poor Foley's boxers out to dry, in public, is Puritanism in its finest hour, and while I'm no fan of instant messaging, especially when it involves sexual harassment of any kind, I don't think instant crucifixion is the way to go either. To my knowledge, Mr. Foley has not put one finger on the boy; his advances were solely in cyberspace. Have we devolved so far into born again moralism that we can no longer distinguish between acts, and intentions? If so, then are we to impugn former president Jimmy Carter who confessed to have lusted in his heart? Is it one thing to lust in one's heart, and another to flirt with a teenager on the Internet? Of course. But, is there a difference between writing a seductive e-mail, or even making a phone call, and sexual assault? I think there is.

Yes, yes, Rep. Foley's resignation from Congress is more than appropriate, and his resignation from the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus must follow, but if the radical right-wing thinks that by eliminating one chickenhawk they will "ex-foliate," and rid their party of the moral hypocrisy, and duplicity that came with Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, and the November revolution of 1994, they'd better think again.

What's more, those Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, who call for an investigation into when the Republican leadership in the House first found out about Foley's transgressions are merely emulating their Republican counterparts by trying to lose themselves in committees, paperwork, and bureaucracy all the while ignoring the very real, and ripe, possibility that, for first time in more than a decade, the Democratic Party may well have found their smoking gun in a pair of boxer shorts, no less. Now the only question is whether or not they have high enough octane, and savvy, to rise to the occasion, and not engage in discourse over who knew what when, but turn Mr. Foley's boxers into the Swift Boat that defeats these Republican neo-con men in the upcoming midterm election, as well as in 2008.

"This is how a nation loses its moral compass..."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said of Congress' passage, this week, of legislation which deprives so-called "enemy combatants" of habeas corpus:

"This is how a nation loses its moral compass, its identity, its values and, eventually, its freedom. . . . We rebelled against King George III for less restrictions on liberty than this."

Washington Post, September 27, 2006

drama queens have their place...

Drama queens have their place, but not on Fox News, or so says Fox News chief Roger Ailes. What's ailing Ailes? The news chief tells the Associated Press that he was offended by what he calls former President Bill Clinton's "wild overreaction" to anchor Chris Wallace's cross-examination on Sunday. Can it be that Mr. Clinton wasn't prepared to take the witness stand? Moreover, it seems that Mr. Ailes cannot himself resist the temptation to engage in a bit of hyperbole when he refers to Clinton's tirade as "an assault on all journalists."

I suppose Ailes didn't consider it an assault on journalism, and a free press when two-thirds of their programming was devoted to Madame Monica, and the Fox hunt for articles of impeachment. Talk about "wild overreactions," to suggest that contempt for bias is hatred for journalists is the sort of thing one might expect from the publisher of the National Enquirer, but not the head of a major American television news network.

And, yes, what's ailing Ailes is that the former president responded with such vitriole to the "mild-mannered, and respectful" probing of anchor Chris Wallace. (AP) Indeed, Chris Wallace was about as retiscent as a seventh grade biology student sticking needles in an aesthesized frog. But, what happens when the anesthesia wears off? S urely the former president knew that when one enters a lion's den, one can expect to get a little mauled, particularly when that particular lion has a long history of mauling anything that doesn't reflect its own Republican and conservative worldview. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and other progressive media watchdog groups, have long chastised Fox for its one-sided, and myopic reporting. What we saw on Sunday is what happens when a victim strikes back, and the victim ain't Fox News!

There is no small irony in the Fox news chief accusing a president who was violated by the neo-con news media of assaulting "all journalists." The press, in this country, was among the first casualties of the war on terror. The media has been plundered and raped by new FCC regulations which impose gargantuan, and obscene "indecency" fines on networks, and broadcasters, thereby censoring what we say and see on TV, and in the movies.

There is no small irony in the head of the penultimate conservative news network calling a former president who they previously scapegoated a hater of journalists in that, over the past five years, we've seen more harassment of the press than even Joe McCarthy could have imagined. So it is that a president, long famous for his drama queen antics, has now met his match in the head of Fox news who epitomizes purple prose in describing the victimization of his esteemed anchor.

After all, can we expect less than rage from a president who was tried, and convicted by the right wing media, and who has dared to speak up, finally, because he has nothing left to lose, but what's left of his dignity, and suggest that while the radical right are at the business of pointing fingers,they should point one in the right direction at the current president; and this constitutes an "assault on journalists?" After all, Fox knows a bit about assault; they've been attacking the truth for years.

Yes, yes, drama queens have their place, but it's not running network news shows.

Selective Deception

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a caveat today that the Bush administration must be "very cautious and very restrained about the kind of information we want to give to al-Qaida." (AP) By only partially releasing a previously classified National Intelligence Estimate report, by the nation's 16 intelligence agencies, that alleges an escalating terror threat, indeed one that has ncreased in direct proportion to this government's "preemptive" military actions, the president, and his "defense ministers," are censoring, and manipulating, what information reaches the American people, and Congress.

White House press secretary Tony Snow, and others who defend partial declassification, insist that if the entire contents of the report were to be made public, "the independence of people doing intelligence analysis" would be compromised. (AP) Excuse me, but why this sudden concern about protecting the lives and "independence" of intelligence analysts from an administration that has been complicit in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame? Is it this government's job to assess, and select which investigators, and investigations are to be concealed, which revealed, and whose lives are worth protecting?


Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's politics of selective deception, which is egregiously demonstrated by the politically timed, and executed declassification of an "abridged" version of the findings of more than a dozen national intelligence agencies corrolates, and fits nicely with their ongoing pattern of seduction by secrecy. Keep in mind that we are being shortchanged by agencies that are sponsored by our taxpayer dollars. Maybe if Congress, and the citizens of this county stood up, and demanded to see the complete contents of those intelligence reports that got us into the war in Iraq, in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about the need to release these findings today.

Over the past 24 hours, much has been said about Iraq having become the "cause celebre" for terrorists. Clearly, Iraq has become not merely a "cause celebre,"and a training ground, but a fraternity house for jihadists. Over the past several hours, too, we've heard our president call "naive" those who believe that our campaign to topple Saddam in Iraq has only resulted in proliferation of Islamic fundamentalist holy warriors, as well as expansion of terror threat. From our president also comes the following rationalization: "My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions." (AP) Yes, yes, Mr. Bush is right, the global jihadists have "ambitions" just like we do. Funny thing about the desire for world domination, it's often accompanied by ambition. Now why doesn't the president open up the entire NIE report so that we can all see, and gauge the threat, as well as the ambitions of those, on both sides of the equation, who engage in ongoing military action that compromises the security, and sanity of the human race.

now Lucifer...

First, Hugo Chavez calls Bush the devil, and now Jerry Falwell calls Bill Clinton "Lucifer." Will you guys just leave the poor diablo alone; he's got enough on his plate as it is...

Over the coming years...

Just came from a visit to the dry cleaners in my new neighborhood. No sooner did I reach the counter than I saw a huge makeshift sign which read: "We will clean your American flag for free;" for free, I thought....hmmmm..... French playwright Jean Anouilh once said, "What you get free costs too much."

On my way out, I approached the proprietor, and asked "Why are you not charging for this service?" He looked at me sternly, and said only; "It's our patriotic duty to keep the flag clean." .""And so it is," I replied; trying to keep a clean flag may cost more and more over the coming years.