Will Indictments Stick?

From today's Washington Post:

One count of the new indictment accuses DeLay of conspiracy to commit money laundering. It says he agreed with one or more associates to launder $190,000 in corporate contributions through an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington, allowing the funds to be passed illegally into the election campaigns of Republican candidates in Texas. Texas law prohibits the use of corporate money in political campaigns.
Link to Washington Post article

Politicians are very good at leveraging relationships. They make deals to benefit those who support them. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Sometimes the shady side of these relationships receive the light of publicity. Even less frequently, the illegitimacy of the actions results in punishment. More often, either the event slips back into the darkness or those with higher relationships step in to find a loop hole to get the guilty party off the hook.

Tom DeLay's indictments, one last week for conspiracy and a second today for money laundering, are the first steps in the process of an attempt to put this unethical individual in jail at best, or out of his position and fined at least.

We will see if his relationship with other Texans with more influence than he will get the dis-honorable Rep Tom DeLay out of this mess.

In his mind, he has done nothing wrong.

DeLay: "This is an abomination of justice."

So, I assume he also did nothing wrong to receive his previous admonishments by a Congressional Ethics Committee.

From CNN:

Nicknamed "The Hammer" during his tenure as GOP whip, DeLay was admonished by the House ethics committee three times in 2004 over separate issues.
Link to CNN article

On a side note related to accountability, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) release on Friday, September 30, their findings on an investigation requested by Senators Edward Kennedy and Frank Lautenberg earlier this year.

From Yahoo!News:

The administration of President George W. Bush broke the law as it resorted to illegal "covert propaganda" in trying to sell its key education initiative to the public, US congressional investigators have found.
Link to article

The scope of the corruption in the current administration and its relations are becoming increasingly evident. Will attempts be made to indict and prosecute? And, will they stick?

Technorati Categories: Bush Administration, Current Affairs, Neocons, News, Opinion, Other, Politics, Random Thoughts.

Bush Responsible for Lack of Federal Response to Katrina

Today, Bush finally admits it is his fault for the abysmal handling of the Katrina emergency response and humanitarian relief effort. It's about f*&@ing time! How long should it take for one to take responsibility for ones actions? If you're Bush or a member of his administration, take as long as you want until you start to lose political ground.

Bush Takes Responsibility for Blunders
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday that "I take responsibility" for failures in dealing with Hurricane Katrina and said the disaster raised broader questions about the government's ability to respond to natural disasters as well as terror attacks.

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at joint White House news conference with the president of Iraq.

"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

The president was asked whether people should be worried about the government's ability to handle another terrorist attack given failures in responding to Katrina.

"Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack? That's a very important question and it's in the national interest that we find out what went on so we can better respond," Bush replied.

He said he wanted to know both what went wrong and what went right.

As for blunders in the federal response, "I'm not going to defend the process going in," Bush said. "I am going to defend the people saving lives."

He praised relief workers at all levels. "I want people in America to understand how hard people worked to save lives down there," he said.

Bush spoke after R. David Paulison, the new acting director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, pledged to intensify efforts to find more permanent housing for the tens of thousands of Hurricane Katrina survivors now in shelters.

It was the closest Bush has come to publicly finding fault with any federal officials involved in the hurricane response, which has been widely criticized as disjointed and slow. Some federal officials have sought to fault state and local officials for being unprepared to cope with the disaster.

Bush planned to address the nation Thursday evening from Louisiana, where he will be monitoring recovery efforts, the White House announced earlier Tuesday.

Paulison, in his first public comments since taking the job on Monday, told reporters: "We're going to get those people out of the shelters, and we're going to move and get them the help they need."

Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff introduced Paulison as the Bush administration tried to deflect criticism for the sluggish initial federal response to the hurricane and its disastrous aftermath.

Chertoff said that while cleanup, relief and reconstruction from Katrina is now the government's top priority, the administration would not let down its guard on other potential dangers.

"The world is not going to stop moving because we are very focused on Katrina," Chertoff said.

Paulison, named to the post on Monday, said he was busy "getting brought up to speed."

He replaced Michael Brown, who resigned on Monday, three days after being removed from being the top onsite federal official in charge of the government's response.

Paulison said Bush called him Monday night and "thanked me for coming on board."

Bush promised that he would have "the full support of the federal government," Paulison said.

Chertoff said the relief operation had entered a new phase.

Initially, he said, the most important priority was evacuating people, getting them to safety, providing food, water and medical care.

" And then ultimately at the end of the day, we have to reconstitute the communities that have been devastated," Chertoff added.

He said the federal government would look increasingly to state and local officials for guidance on rebuilding the devastated communities along the Gulf Coast.

"The federal government can't drive permanent solutions down the throats of state and local officials," Chertoff said. "I don't think anyone should envision a situation in which they're going to take a back seat. They're going to take a front seat," he said.

Chertoff said that teams of federal auditors were being dispatched to the stricken areas to make sure that billions of dollars worth of government contracts were being properly spent. "We want to get aid to people who need it quickly, but we also don't want to lose sight of the importance of preserving the integrity of the process and our responsibility as stewards of the public money," Chertoff said.

"We're going to cut through red tape," he said, "but we're not going to cut through laws and rules that govern ethics."

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that some military aircraft and other equipment may be able to move out of the Gulf Coast soon.

"We've got to the point where most if not all of the search and rescue is completed," said Rumsfeld, who is attending a
NATO meeting in Berlin. "Some helicopters can undoubtedly be moved out over the period ahead."

He also said there is a very large surplus of hospital beds in the region, so those could also be decreased. The USS Comfort hospital ship arrived near the Mississippi coast late last week. Rumsfeld added that nothing will be moved out of the area without the authorization of the two states' governors, the military leaders there and the president.

Elsewhere, workers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aren't finding many sick people, even though the specter of diseases has alarmed relief and rescue figures. Instead, between 40 and 50 percent of patients seeking emergency care have injuries. The
CDC has counted 148 injuries in just the last two days, Carol Rubin, an agency hurricane relief specialist, said by telephone from the government's new public health headquarters in New Orleans' Kindred Hospital.

While she couldn't provide a breakdown, Rubin said chain saw injuries and carbon monoxide exposure from generators are among them. Those are particularly worrisome because they're likely to become more common as additional hurricane survivors re-enter the city in coming days, she said.

The message: Those injuries are preventable, if people take proper precautions, Rubin stressed.
Source: Yahoo News

The lack of backbone to stand up and admit the failures of the government is an embarrassment to the entire American people. This man has neither the moral character, nor the intellectual capacity to understand when to admit his flaws.

The wiser man understand his intellectual limitations and does not pretend to be more than he is. Knowledge grows from an acceptance of the universe as a school from which we all continue to learn.

The compassionate man understands the unfortunate condition of another is not to be for his advantage but created as an opportunity to give of himself.

Technorati Categories: Bush Administration, Current Affairs, Humanity, Neocons, News, Opinion, Other, Politics, Random Thoughts.

The Last Blunder

For the last time, this administration has got to go!

First, they make a mockery of the 9/11 victims by conducting and accepting a flawed investigation into the September 11 attacks. The Bush administration withholding information and ultimately provided that which they consider will not compromise national security, instead of letting those on the investigation committee decide for themselves. The hamstrung committee for not pushing harder to get the information, nor included testimony from witnesses contradicting the party line.

Second, they led America into an unjustified and illegal war resulting in the deaths of thousands and the destruction of the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. A war waged on illegal grounds, against the United Nations and the entire international community common opinion.

Third, they allowed the indefinite incarceration of innocent civilians under the convenient "enemy combatant" label. Fathers, brothers, uncles, and sons detained indefinitely.

Fourth, they allowed the use of torture against detainees. Enemy combatants, insurgents, etc. either through direct detainment in prisons in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, or through rendition.

Fifth, and worst of all since it is against innocent Americans on domestic soil, the failure to help those American citizens in need in New Orleans, and the rest of the cities in the Gulf states destroyed by hurricane Katrina. This human catastrophe could have been prevented had immediate action and leadership been taken.

Bush and company have got to go!

Here's an article echoing my sentiments from the Baltimore Sun:

After Katrina fiasco, time for Bush to go

WASHINGTON - The disastrous federal response to Katrina exposes a record of incompetence, misjudgment and ideological blinders that should lead to serious doubts that the Bush administration should be allowed to continue in office.

When taxpayers have raised, borrowed and spent $40 billion to $50 billion a year for the past four years for homeland security but the officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency cannot find their own hands in broad daylight for four days while New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast swelter, drown and die, it is time for them to go.

When funding for water works and levees in the gulf region is repeatedly cut by an administration that seems determined to undermine the public responsibility for infrastructure in America, despite clear warnings that the infrastructure could not survive a major storm, it seems clear someone is playing politics with the public trust.

When rescue and medical squads are sitting in Manassas and elsewhere in northern Virginia and foreign assistance waits at airports because the government can't figure out how to insure the workers, how to use the assistance or which jurisdiction should be in charge, it is time for the administration to leave town.

When President Bush stays on vacation and attends social functions for two days in the face of disaster before finally understanding that people are starving, crying out and dying, it is time for him to go.

When FEMA officials cannot figure out that there are thousands stranded at the New Orleans convention center - where people died and were starving - and fussed ineffectively about the same problems in the Superdome, they should be fired, not praised, as the president praised FEMA Director Michael Brown in New Orleans last week.

When Mr. Bush states publicly that "nobody could anticipate a breach of the levee" while New Orleans journalists, Scientific American, National Geographic, academic researchers and Louisiana politicians had been doing precisely that for decades, right up through last year and even as Hurricane Katrina passed over, he should be laughed out of town as an impostor.

When repeated studies of New Orleans make it clear that tens of thousands of people would be unable to evacuate the city in case of a flood, lacking both money and transportation, but FEMA makes no effort before the storm to commandeer buses and move them to safety, it is time for someone to be given his walking papers.

When the president makes Sen. Trent Lott's house in Pascagoula, Miss., the poster child for rebuilding while hundreds of thousands are bereft of housing, jobs, electricity and security, he betrays a careless insensitivity that should banish him from office.

When the president of the United States points the finger away from the lame response of his administration to Katrina and tries to finger local officials in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, La., as the culprits, he betrays the unwillingness of this administration to speak truth and hold itself accountable. As in the case of the miserable execution of policy in Iraq, Mr. Bush and Karl Rove always have some excuse for failure other than their own misjudgments.

We have a president who is apparently ill-informed, lackadaisical and narrow-minded, surrounded by oil baron cronies, religious fundamentalist crazies and right-wing extremists and ideologues. He has appointed officials who give incompetence new meaning, who replace the positive role of government with expensive baloney.

They rode into office in a highly contested election, spouting a message of bipartisanship but determined to undermine the federal government in every way but defense (and, after 9/11, one presumed, homeland security). One with Grover Norquist, they were determined to shrink Washington until it was "small enough to drown in a bathtub." Katrina has stripped the veil from this mean-spirited strategy, exposing the greed, mindlessness and sheer profiteering behind it.

It is time to hold them accountable - this ugly, troglodyte crowd of Capital Beltway insiders, rich lawyers, ideologues, incompetents and their strap-hangers should be tarred, feathered and ridden gracefully and mindfully out of Washington and returned to their caves, clubs in hand.

Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, was senior White House budget official for national security in the Clinton administration.

Technorati Categories: Bush Administration, Current Affairs, Humanity, Neocons, News, Opinion, Other, Politics, Random Thoughts.

Katrina's Wake

As one of the most powerful hurricanes in recent history to hit the Gulf states, Katrina has left a significant impact in her wake. Not only because of the force of the hurricane winds, but the result of the massive amounts of rain and storm surge which has inundated the area resulting in massive flooding.

New Orleans is 80% under water. Some areas are under as much as 20 feet of water. It could have been much worse if the eye of the hurricane would have passed west of the city instead of east.

One of the worst fears, a breach of the levee system surrounding the city, was realized when a two-block-long breach opened in a section of a levee that protects the city from Lake Pontchartrain.

Another fear, contamination of the city's drinkable water supply, was realized when a 50-inch water main was severed during the storm.

New Orleans was not the only city devastated by the storm. Biloxi and Gulf Port, Mississippi bore the brunt of the storm.

Mobile, Alabama had water from Mobile Bay surge into the city's downtown, submerging large sections of the city. An oil drilling platform broke away from its moorings and lodged under a bridge.

Estimates are in the months for the areas to resume basic functions.

I feel for the families and hope help arrives quickly for all these people. May the true light of man's humanity shine through this overcast period.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Humanity, News, Other, Random Thoughts.

Has Pat Robertson Lost His Mind?

Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas.
Courtesy of CNN

What is Pat Robertson thinking?

This one-time presidential candidate and host of the evangelical "The 700 Club" is calling for the assassination of another country's elected leader.

This Christian, founder of the Christian Coalition, is calling for the taking of a life for no reason other than the individual being "a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly."

Robertson accused Chavez, a left-wing populist with close ties to Cuban President Fidel Castro, of trying to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."

"This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen," he said.
Courtesy of CNN

Great! Just what America needs... another "Christian" who feels it his moral obligation to fight Muslim extremism and protect our freedoms!

Technorati Categories: Christian, Christianity, Extremism,
Islam,
Media,
Muslim, Opinion, Politics, Religion, Theology

Gaza Withdrawal

History: Gaza Strip (from Wikipedia)

The Strip's borders were originally defined by the armistice lines between Egypt and Israel after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which followed the dissolution of the British mandate of Palestine. It was occupied by Egypt until it was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Around 1.37 million Palestinians and about 8,000 Israelis live in the Gaza Strip. The majority of the Palestinians are direct descendants of refugees who fled or were expelled from Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Egypt was there from 1948 until 1967 when Israel took over the territory. So, to be clear, the settlers came in and took land from the existing Palestinian residents.

Alright, that's the background.

While reading the latest world news on the Internet, I come across a very good comment, one which verbalizes quite effectively the exact same questions and concerns I have felt while observing the medias' presentation of the current situation in Gaza over the last few days.

Here it is:

The past week, the media has been full of close-ups of grieving Israeli settlers mourning the loss of their government-built illegal homes. The coverage is almost exclusively from the point of view of the settlers, even though they have stolen the land their houses were built upon, even though the settlements are illegal under international law, even though their Palestinian neighbours live in shacks that can be bulldozed at a moment's notice by the IDF, even though they are being well-paid to "give up" the houses, even though they will be resettled in new illegal homes on the West Bank, and even though the whole thing is being orchestrated to portray Ariel Sharon as a man of peace.

Which has to make you wonder why the Israelis are always being favoured in the press and why the Israelis are always being supported by the US.
Courtesy: Signs of the Times

Technorati Categories: Bush Administration, Israel,
Media, Palestine,Politics, Zionist

Anniversary of Shame

Today is the 60th anniversary of the first atomic bomb application against human beings on a grand scale. Previous applications had been on much smaller scales and more insidiously used against an unknowing American military.

120,000 died instantly when the two atomic bombs exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.

If we are not reminded of the horrors and tremendous magnitude of the senseless loss of life by a single nuclear event, caused by the decision of a few, we are surely doomed to repeat it. But, having said this, I realize it is beyond us, unless we demand...

• The dismantling of all nuclear weapons.
  
• Expulsion of those in power who would even consider the use of these weapons as an option.
  
• Redirection of military spending for purposes of improving the human condition, toward environmentally-friendly fuels, access to education and health care for all, to mention a few.
  
• Accountability for actions taken against humanity.
  

I will continue to voice my support for the individual over the state, respect for life over power, financial gain, or religious dogma.

Life is about giving, not taking.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, Random Thoughts.

Patriot Act Renewal Distraction

******* 23 July 2005 UPDATE *******
Prison Planet's analysis reveals some very interesting observations. Below are a few of the more intriguing:

Today is the last day of parliament before an 80 day break. So if the governmen wanted to get those anti-terror measures through which were proposed after the 7/7 bombing, then this status of high alert is the perfect climate to get them rammed through without dissent.

Sky News reported that members of parliament could be recalled tonight in a special session for the express purpose of passing that legislation.

In the early confusion about what is actually happening in London, several things are already clear.

- This immediately stalls questions about the first bombing. The mainstream media were finally beginning to highlight the fact that the government's official story did not fit together. This takes those issues off the front pages.

- This further promulgates the fearmongering and creates a pliable public that is willing to accept draconian anti-terror laws. They are trying to turn us into Israel, with an alert or a bombing every fortnight.

- On the very day that the Patriot Act is due to be renewed, Bush can use the alert level to grease the skids and bully Congress into re-authorizing the bill.
Read the rest of the article here

******* Original Post*******
Coincidence or not?

Yesterday's London bombings occurs on the same day the US House of Representatives permanently renews 14 out of 16 expiring Patriot Act provisions. The two which were not permanently renewed will come up for renewal in 10 years.

The original Patriot Act was in response to the 9/11 attacks and supposed to be a temporary measure to provide intelligence agencies with the capabilities to catch the terrorists. It has sinced turned into a permanent fixture in the American intelligence apparatuses.

Passage came with the specter of terrorism fresh in lawmakers' minds after another round of bombing incidents in London earlier in the day.
Source: CNN

Interestingly, on the day the vote was to take place, the failed London bombings provided a timely, vivid "reminder" of the necessity for intelligence agencies to have the freedom to go after anyone them deem to be a terrorist or terrorist suspect.

Although the Senate still has to authorize the changes, the fact this news-worthy item is being overshadowed by the London bombings is very interesting.

And, bombings which appear to have been made to look like the July 7th bombings, but were actually quite amateur in comparison, failed to explode -- ALL FOUR! What are the odds of that happenning?

Unlike the devastation of a fortnight before, when 56 people died and more than 700 were injured, Thursday's repeat attacks caused no casualties as the rucksack-borne bombs seemingly failed to detonate fully.

Witnesses reported hearing loud pops like guns or corks as smoke poured from the rucksacks, testimony which experts said indicated that the bombs' detonators went off but failed to ignite the main charges.
Source: AFP

Today, a suspected terrorist was shot in a London subway.

Scotland Yard said the man shot dead at about 1000 BST on Friday in Stockwell had still to be formally identified.

He was being under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was being watched following Thursday's attacks, a spokesman said.

The man was followed by surveillance officers to Stockwell station, where his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions, he added.

Stockwell passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen a man of Asian appearance shot five times by "plain-clothes police officers".

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him," he said.
Source: BBC

So, he's a suspected terrorist because he walked out of a suspected terrorist house. Even though they aren't sure who he is, he is tackled because his attire and behavior is a bit suspicious, then they unload five shots into the unknown individual.

Let's hope, for the Scotland Yard's sake, this individual is found to have explosive material on him and, by their actions, the police prevented enother potentially devastating attack. If not, let's hope there's a public outcry for police restraint until there is absolute certainty of guilt of an individual before someone is allowed to kill them in cold blood.

All of this, food for thought yet again...

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, Random Thoughts, War on Terror.

Move Over Rove and Let Joe Take Over

Move over Rover and let Jimi take over
Jimi Hendrix - Fire

Joseph Wilson speaks out in a Washington Post article:

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson called on President Bush Thursday to fire deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, saying Bush's top-level aide engaged in an "abuse of power" by discussing Wilson's wife's job with a reporter.

Wilson, in an interview broadcast Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, said he thinks the White House's posture in this controversy represents a continuing "cover-up of the web of lies that underpin the justification for going to war in Iraq."

"The president has said repeatedly, "I am a man of my word,' " Wilson added. "He should stand up and prove that his word is his bond and fire Karl Rove."

Wilson has said the leak of his wife's name was an attempt by the administration to discredit him after he challenged its assertion that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was seeking to obtain from Niger material to make nuclear weapons.
Source - Washintgon Post

The heat is on Bush to do something about Rove. Bush's credibility is on the line.

It would be interesting to see if some BIG event coincidentally strikes to take the focus away from ...

• Rove's illegal act of revealing the identity of an intelligence operative.


• Bush's refusal to take action on the source of the Plame leak.


• Downing Street memos confirming the Bush administrations' "fixing" the facts to support the policy of going after Sadam.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Iraq, Media, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, War, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Rove's Scandalous Links

Karl Rove has acts as if, and I'm sure considers himself, beyond reproach. Nothing can touch him. Noone can stop him from getting his way.

Those were the old days.

Although he still is connected and influencial, the revelations of participation in what are becoming more obvious as scandalous activities are beginning to show the cracks in the armor. Several still vocally stand in his defense, most likely to gain future favors. A growing number of others are distancing themselves carefully so as not to draw attention to themselves when the hammer falls. And, another number of others are fence sitting to weather Rove's political storm should he win or lose.

Daniel Schorr, National Public Radio's senior news analyst and Christian Science Monitor's contributing columnist, writes in the article Rove Leak is Just Part of Larger Scandal:

Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.

In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."

Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.

No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.

One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a super-secret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.

The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.
Source: Christian Science Monitor

This from someone with a career of more than six decades who knows how to conduct his research and developed a keen sense for putting all the pieces together.

Now, for the other scandal brewing...

As most of you who have followed this blog know, the actions of another Texas politician, not too disimilar from Rove in his character, Tom DeLay, have been in and out of the media for quite some time. Specifically, the issue of ethical misconduct.

Well, lo and behold, here we find Karl Rove involved as well.

In a press release from the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress, manager Peter L. Kelley reveals Rove's close connection with Jack Abramoff, who is at the center of DeLay's lobbying scandal. From the article Rove Tied to Tom DeLay Lobbying Scandal:

Karl Rove's involvement in leaking the name of a CIA operative for political advantage during wartime could be just the tip of the iceberg as far as unethical behavior, since his web of influence extends to the most notorious figure of the House Lobbying Scandal.

"It's widely known that Karl Rove has been pulling strings all over Washington for years, obviously not just in the case of the Plame leak," said Peter L. Kelley, manager of the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress.

"What is not widely known, however, is his close connection with Jack Abramoff, who is at the center of the lobbying scandal in which Washington is now embroiled. Rove let archconservative operatives like Grover Norquist call shots at the White House. And just this week, a Texas judge ruled that a former Rove lieutenant must face felony charges of money laundering for Tom DeLay's political operation.

"Without further ethics reforms, the public has virtually no ability to find out what is really going on in Washington these days," Kelley said. "But what we do know is starting to smell, and it offers a starting point for further investigation."

The collapse of Rove's dynasty has begun. Let's see whether his influence will save him from these continuous revelations of unethical and, potentially, criminal activities.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Media, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Media Sharks Smell Blood in White House CIA Leak Involvement

Interesting week to say the least!

Since my last post on Friday, where I expressed my concern over the undeniably restrained coverage by the press community for such a HOT news item (specifically, last week's revelation that Karl Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, was the source of the leak which resulted in the exposure of a CIA operative) which should have had them all drooling to break the news. Well, this week, the press has been all over White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Bush, who was initially defending Rove, has taken a more non-commital tone.

There is definitly blood in the water. The press sharks smells it and have decided to jump all over the news of Rove's involvement. Like dogs who have been beaten for so long, sensing a time to bite the abuser in a moment of weakness.

Democrats are calling for Rove's dismissal while the Republican faithful see nothing wrong, or relevant to the leak, in Rove's discussion of Joe Wilson's wife being a CIA operative.

Republicans mounted an aggressive and coordinated defense of Karl Rove yesterday, contending that the White House's top political adviser did nothing improper or illegal when he discussed a covert CIA official with a reporter.
Source: Washington Post

The Republican National Committee and congressional Republicans are vocal in blaming the Democrats for "partisan politics", yet the White House has been taking a more subdued approach, in contrast to earlier unwavering support for Rove.

President Bush said Wednesday he will withhold judgment about top aide Karl Rove's involvement in the leaking the identity of a CIA operative until a federal criminal investigation is complete.

The lack of an endorsement surprised some Bush advisers who had expected the president to voice his support.

"This is a serious investigation," Bush said at the end of a meeting with his Cabinet, with Rove sitting just behind him. "I will be more than happy to comment on this matter once this investigation is complete.

"I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports," he said, when asked whether Rove acted improperly in discussing CIA officer Valerie Plame with a reporter.

Bush is "withholding judgement". Sounds like political CYA.

Media Quiet on Karl Rove Involvement in Plame Leak

Why haven't we been hearing more about Karl Rove's alleged involvement in leaking Valerie Plame's (identified as a CIA operative) name to the media? One of the most potentially damaging stories of the year for the current administation and it is obviously being played down.

Isn't it odd that one of the most treacherous acts against the country is going under-reported? Revealing the name of an intelligence operative and compromising, more likely resulting in the death of, other assets and intelligence channels which have taken years to develop. According to the law, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the act by itself warrants imprisonment.

Ariana Huffington's opinion, appearing July 6th on her site, is the obvious fear of what Karl Rove and the White House are capable of doing, to even the biggest of media moguls and their empires, to those who cross them.

According to the players, the key to whether this story has real legs -- and whether it will spell the end of Rove -- is determining intent. And a key to that is whether there was a meeting at the White House where Rove and Scooter Libby discussed what to do with the information they had gotten from the State Department about Valerie Plame being Joe Wilson’s wife, and her involvement in his being sent on the Niger/yellowcake mission. If it can be proven that such a meeting occurred, then Rove will be in deep trouble -- especially if it is established that Rove made three phone calls leaking the info about Plame and her CIA gig… one to Matt Cooper, one to Walter Pincus, and one to Robert Novak.

So, it's a given Karl Rove is involved, the questions is to what degree he willingly, and with premeditated intent to cause harm, released the information. Did he encourage, demand, or suggest (wink, wink) the name be made public as pay-back for Ambassador Joe Wilson's (Valerie Plame's husband) public denial of the Nigerian yellowcake uranium memo used by the Bush administration as proof of Sadam's weapons program.

Other than intent, the other big legal question raised was: will Rove be able to get away with claiming that he did not know Plame was an undercover agent?

We all know what happened after Rove placed those calls. The question is, what will happen now?

Yes, what will happen now? Good question, indeed.

Last week, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was sentenced to jail, being held in contempt of court for refusing to reveal a confidential source to the grand jury investigating the disclosure of Plame's identity. We can only hope this ultimately results in the revelation of the identity of the leak.

One thing is for certain, the media will wish this go away or some other news rise to the surface. You see, this will be the only way to avoid being held to the public scrutiny of having failed in their responsibility to report this egregeous action and bring to light this obvious violation of public trust by our leaders.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Media, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Blasts in Britain: Police had Advance Warning

Truly a sad day today in England. A series of explosions were reported to have occurred in the subway and on a bus resulting in a large number of deaths.

I am saddened by the meaningless loss of life. It makes no sense that this should happen to innocent civilians which are not responsible for the politicians' actions. In addition, I'm disturbed by the timing of the event and disappearance of some initial reports.

Below is an objective analysis from Signs of the Times of why actions such as these definitely DO NOT serve the terrorists' objectives, whatever they may be:

We would like to appeal to all our readers to think about these attacks rationally. First of all, ask yourself, what does "al-qaeda" or any other "previously unknown" Islamic group have to gain from carrying out these attacks at this particular time in London. Coming on the very day that the "G8" leaders meet in Scotland, the only tangible results of the attacks have been to vector British and world public attention TOWARDS the "reality" of "Arab terrorism" and AWAY from the crimes of people like Bush and Blair as regards the pillaging of the resources (both human and natural) of third world countries. On the very day that G8 leaders were expected to deliver on the demands of the World public to alleviate "third world" debt, "al-qaeda" steps in and saves them the trouble by bringing "terrorism" center stage.

One of the most troubling aspects of "Arab terror" attacks in Europe and the US is that the victims are almost always ordinary civilians. By now, any Arab terrorist strategist should surely have realised that their issue is not with the civilian population of Western nations but rather with the politicians that make the decisions, many of which run contrary to the will of the people. The massive anti-Iraq war demonstrations around Europe and the US made this point quite clear. In this case, what does "al-qaeda" have to gain from attacking London trains and buses filled with civilian workers when it is patently obvious that civilian deaths at the hands of "terrorists" will do nothing to sway the average Western government from their political and military designs on the Middle East, quite the opposite in fact.

It really is a no brainer that "al-qaeda" terrorism very definitely serves the agenda of Bush and Blair.

Something very strange happened during the early reporting of the events. Several articles released early during the breaking news of the explosions stated that British police had notified the Israeli embassy of the potential terrorist acts began disappearing from web sites. The original release being replaced by denials.

One such report had the title "Israeli Official: Scotland Yard had warning" with the brief content:

JERUSALEM — British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before today's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.

The report was replaced with on titled "Israel denies receiving warning before blasts".

Links to sites where the article was replaced:

• Fox News - "Israeli
  Official: Scotland Yard Had Warning"


• Houston Chronicle - "Britain passed on warning to Israeli Embassy just before blast"


• Canoe - "Israel got warning of terror attack minutes before"

Here is one example where the original AP release exists:

Scotland Yard had warned Israel of possible terror attacks

Jerusalem, July 7 (AP): British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before today's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his position.

Israel was holding an economic conference near the scene of one of the explosions. Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was supposed to attend, but the attacks occurred before he arrived.

Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy and said warnings of possible attacks had been received, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference.

Link to article on Hindu News
Link to article on Rediff.com
Link to article on NY Newsday

I'm troubled by the parallels to the reports of warnings to the Israeli instant messaging service company in the World Trade Center, Odigo, prior to the September 11th attack. Why is it that Israeli interests seem to have been warned PRIOR to the attacks?

Food for thought.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Israel, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, Random Thoughts, War on Terror.

You Lied!

Yesterday, I listened to a song I was unable to get out of my head. 'You Lied' (listen here) possesses a pleasant-sounding musical accompaniment and melodic flow to a definitely disturbing, yet starkly accurate, lyrical foundation.

Here are the lyrics for your benefit:

You Lied
copyright 2005 Signs of the Times

You told the world Saddam had chemical bombs
To kill us all in our homes, on our farms
You said he sent his men into the heavens
big planes crashing down, September 11

You lied, You lied,
People died, When Bush lied

I've got some questions, wipe that smirk off your face
Betraying your people, that's a real disgrace
See I'm having a hard time finding that plane
you said hit the Pentagon, bursting into flames
Vapourising the aircraft, didn't leave no remains
But the bodies appear not to burn quite the same

More lies Yeah, yeah, more lies
America died, When Bush lied

And talk about mir'cles, did you see how they fell,
the three towers in New York, those charges worked well
Flattened out in a straight line, just like it was planned
Did you think we were so stupid that we wouldn't understand
And it's a pity about the folks there on Flight 93,
Just as they took back control, you blew them to smithereens

You lied, You lied
Heroes died, when Bush lied

You say Osama is living in a place you have traced
But you don't go and get him, it seems such a waste
Could it be it's because he's still one of your men
A C-I-A asset just like he was then
He endorsed your campaign in a last minute pitch
Is he just one more man who has gotten quite rich

From your lies, Your lies
Freedom died, from your lies

How about those Israelis dancing to their success,
On the rooftops of Jersey, they created a mess
So you sent them back home with a slap on the wrist
Told the cops not to bother, 'cause they don't exist

It's a lie, You lied
Justice died, when you lied

Now people are dying through your crimes in Iraq
You've killed more than Saddam, though you don't care to keep track
Cause they're only some Arabs in a faraway land
That Yahweh has promised to his chosen band
While Sharon and his cronies pull on your strings
When he opens his mouth your whole government sings

His lies, His lies
Palestinians die, With Bush lies

Next time you talk to your God, I've got a question for him
What side is he on or does it change on a whim'
There's a whole lot of people, suff'rin here in his name
What kind of pyscho is he that he's playing this game
It sounds more like the devil is guiding your hand
Destruction and death are the plagues of the land

of your lies, your lies
Children die, When Bush lies

You see, Mr President, there's something amiss
Two elections you lost, but you overcame this
By rigging the vote, not counting the blacks
You've ensured two full terms, the dry drunk is back
And now they're changing the laws to get you a third
The brown shirts are charging at the front of the herd

of your lies, your lies
Democracy dies, When Bush lies

The question remains what can we do about this
Most people refuse to consider this list
They're lost in illusion, can't recognise proof
so we offer this song to all who stand for the truth

No more lies, No more lies
Must we all die, Because of your lies

No more lies, No more lies
Must we all die, Because of your lies

Your lies...

Here's another you might have heard before which is just as significant:

Imagine
Written by: John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Think about the it for a moment... no more lies, no more wars.

How much longer do we accept the world which has been set up for us? Get up and DO something to change the status quo. Take the world back from those who wish to control and enslave every single one of us.

For us, for our children, for mankind's future.

Technorati Categories: Bush, Current Affairs, Entertainment, Music, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, Random Thoughts.

Listen to Molly

Molly Ivins has been around quite a while (30 years in journalism) commenting and writing about a variety of things. She has a no-nonsense, down-to-earth, yet piercing style of getting right to the heart of the matter. I've enjoyed reading her columns and would like to share a few with you...

On the recent Supreme Court decision to allow local governments to sieze private property for economic development:

Eminent development - Supreme Court sides with rich vs. poor
"Jobs, jobs, jobs," is the eternal cry of the economic development lobby, which always stands to profit from whatever abomination is about to be foisted on the public. I'm not arguing that bigger is better or worse, I'm arguing that local governments are likely to seize on any chance to increase their tax base. We've got places in Texas that beg for prisons, chemical complexes, even nuclear waste dumps.

What it doesn't mean is a better place to live, which I gather is what the Supreme Court majority had in mind with this decision. Those who naively trust local governments to make wise decisions clearly haven't been paying attention. The main difference between the feds and the locals is that it costs more to buy the feds. And I don't like cynics.

People have the most remarkable ability to convince themselves that what they are doing is for the greater good if they are also making a great deal of money out of it. Or, as Upton Sinclair put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

People excuse this kind of thing by saying, "You can't stop progress." "Progress" of this sort doesn't happen through some inexorable law, it usually happens because the law and the political system have been bought by huge economic interests. Corporations can file lawsuits and defend lawsuits longer than a normal human can live, and they can make more generous campaign contributions than any seven homeowners will ever be able to come up with.

On the Downing Street memo:

Dismissing Downing Street - Just because everyone knew it was a setup doesn't mean it's not news
The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times have all gone way out of their way to deny that the Downing Street Memos (it's now plural) are news. Like many of you, during the entire lead-up to the war with Iraq, I thought the whole thing was a set-up.

I raise this point not to prove how smart we are, but to emphasize that I followed the debate closely and probably unconsciously searched for evidence that reinforced what I already thought. Most people do that. I read some of the European press and most of the liberal publications in this country. I read the Times, the Post, the Wall Street Journal and several Texas papers every day. It's my job.

But when I read the first Downing Street Memo, my eyes bugged out and my jaw fell open. I could not believe what I was reading. It was news to me, and as I have tried to indicate, I'm no slouch at keeping up. Yes, it has long seemed to me the administration had been planning the war for months before it began its pubic relations campaign to scare a skeptical public.

That was no easy task. Public opinion was still evenly divided at the time we invaded. The administration actually said it could invade another country without even consulting Congress or the United Nations. Pretty much everything that followed was a charade.

It was always weird that the White House kept saying it knew Saddam Hussein had WMD, but it would never tell the U.N. inspectors where.

The very prestigious papers [New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times] that are now dismissing the Downing Street Memos have already themselves admitted that their pre-war coverage was -- I don't know, you pick the adjective. Slack? Inadequate? Less than rigorous? Wrong? And now they're saying, oh hell, this isn't news, we knew it all along.

Michael Kinsley out at the Los Angeles Times, which has certainly done some commendable reporting on this war and taken the heat for it, too, also dismisses the memos. I don't get it. You suddenly get evidence -- I don't know if it proves or just strongly suggests -- that this administration lied to all of us about war, and your reaction is not to go after the administration, but to dismiss the evidence? And to put down the people who are calling you screaming about why you haven't bothered to mention it? What is wrong with this picture?

Also aggravating, the Republicans in Congress refuse to allow hearings. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan held "Democratic hearings," without the R's, in a room described as a large closet, because they were not allowed to use an actual hearing room. Under these difficult circumstances, 30 Democratic representatives persisted in asking the important question, "Were Americans deliberately misled in the lead-up to this war?" When did we come to the point where the minority has no place?

I don't know if these memos represent an impeachable offense -- although I must say, I don't want to bring up the Clinton comparison again. But they strike me as a hell of lot worse than anything Richard Nixon ever contemplated.

On the Bush administration:

The definition of insanity - Bush appointments and comments clearly indicate he's not learning from his mistakes
Sometimes you look at the people Bush appoints to high public office and the only possible response is, "What were they thinking?"

Zalmay Khalilzad for U.S. ambassador to Iraq? Why not just send Richard Perle? Khalilzad is a second-rank neo-con with all the same credentials as the rest of those bozos -- pre-emptive war, world hegemony, Project for a New American Century... the whole stinking lot of it. Plus, he's been a big booster for Iran's ayatollahs, the Afghani Mujahideen and the Taliban, not to mention an oil company consultant. Isn't that just jim-dandy?

What this tells us is that the administration has learned exactly nothing from the past three years of insurgency in Iraq. The 1,700-dead, $1 billion-a-week mistake will continue to be run in exactly the same way we have already proved doesn't work.

It's like Ben Franklin's definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

As one who has long argued that George W. Bush is not stupid, I must admit that not learning from your mistakes is a prime signal of stupidity. But of course, in order to learn from your mistakes, you have to recognize you made them.

On business clout and influence in politics:

Turning up the sleaze - Welcome to the age of government by transaction
A jaw-dropping article in The Texas Observer shows that two lobbying clients of Jack Abramoff paid $25,000 to Grover Norquist's group for a lunch date and meeting with President George W. Bush in May 2001. Abramoff brought the Indian chiefs to the White house at the request of Norquist, a leading "movement conservative" in Washington. In addition, Abramoff obtained $2.5 million in contributions from the Indians for a nonprofit foundation run by his wife and himself.

The White House guests were the chiefs of two of the six casino-rich Indian tribes represented by Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon, former top aide to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay. The $25,000 check from the Coushatta tribe of Louisiana is made out to Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax group founded and directed by Norquist.

Norquist, Abramoff and Karl Rove have worked together for 30 years, since they were national leaders of the College Republicans. Norquist, DeLay and Abramoff are all key players in the "the K Street Project" to turn the Washington lobby corps into an arm of the Republican Party.

For an overview of the entire Abramoff scandal and its relation to Tom DeLay and the K Street Project -- and what all this means in terms of Washington sleaze -- see an article by Elizabeth Drew, "Selling Washington," in the June 23 issue of The New York Review of Books. Drew and other students of Washington corruption conclude what we have here is not so much a difference in kind as in degree of corruption -- but of a degree that's making a difference in everything.

Drew writes, "The effects of the new, higher level of corruption on the way the country is governed are profound. Not only is legislation increasingly skewed to benefit the richest interests, but Congress itself has been changed. The head of a public policy strategy group told me: 'It's not about governing any more. The Congress is now a transactional institution. ...' The theory that ours is a system of one-person, one-vote, or even that it's a representative democracy, is challenged by the reality of power and who really wields it. (Massachusetts Rep.) Barney Frank argues that 'the political system was supposed to overcome the financial advantage of the capitalists, but as money becomes more and more influential, it doesn't work that way.'"

Molly has lots of material which you should go give it a look. Go here for a list of her opinion columns.

Technorati Categories: Opinion, Politics, Random Thoughts.

On Being Small and Powerful

Earlier this week I received my Surfrider Foundation monthly Making Waves issue and was struck by the simplicity and timeliness of the editorial.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Surfrider Foundation, I will just provide some excerpts from their Mission Statement and Foundation Principles page:

SURFRIDER recognizes the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the planet's coasts are necessary and irreplaceable. SURFRIDER is committed to preserving natural living and non-living diversity and ecological integrity of the coastal environment.

SURFRIDER believes environmental education is essential to the future health and well- being of the planet. SURFRIDER seeks to develop and utilize educational materials that are informative, factual, proactive, synergistic and fun.

SURFRIDER strives to be accurate and nonpartisan in its communications with its members and the general public. In addition, SURFRIDER will express the unique values inherent in wave-riding — individualism, camaraderie, non materialism, and an appreciation for human kind's historic relations with the Ocean.

SURFRIDER is a grassroots organization, effective through the participation of its members. SURFRIDER activities emphasize the value of an involved membership.

SURFRIDER will not permit sponsors to divert the Foundation from its mission or projects undertaken.

Anyone who has a love for the ocean or an appreciation for the preservation and protection of our natural resources, I encourage you visit the Surfrider website and assess whether their efforts to protect the world's oceans is worthy of your support.

Now, back to the editorial...

People have to come to terms with one fact of life. If one is unhappy / dissatisfied / uncomfortable / etc. with ones situation, is it ultimately up to the individual to analysze the situation and make a choice as to whether there should be any action taken to change the situation or accept it as what it is.

There are those who like to complain. Either they see a futility in the situation, because they feel there are no options for changing the situation, or it is a preferred method of getting attention from others.

There are those who expect others to take care of the situation for them. You know, taking care of something takes work! Some don't want to work. Maybe it's not about the work but about the responsibility they will assume. Taking action means taking responsibility.

There are those who refuse to acknowledge the situation in the first place. Either they are afraid of confirming the reality behind their situation or concerned about the ramifications of having acknowledged the situation at all.

There are many more reasons for not DOing anything about a situation which one knows is just not right. And many will live a life less than what it could POTENTIALLY BE.

Then, there are those who see this life as something meaningful. Life is made up of each individual moment, each decision, each action or inaction of every one of us on this planet.

From the editorial, for those who see life as an opportunity to grow individually and collectively:

Ever feel like you're not getting anywhere no matter how hard you try, or that everything is going wrong in the world? Well do not fret, for everything you do affects the whole, and it doesn't work proportionately. Just as a butterfly flapping its wings in one hemisphere can effect a hurricane in another, one sincere gesture on your end can have positive consequences of geometrical proportions. So don't ever give up.

So yes, as one individual changes, the entire system changes. You never know when you are going to be the tipping point.

I'm small and I know it and it's great news. Every time I stand at the water's edge and a wave races up and embraces my feet, it's a trip. I think one of the most tragic things of all is how we cheat ourselves of the present moment, of the small moment.

Make the small moments count.

Technorati Categories: Feeling, Health and Wellness, Life, My Life, Other, Random Thoughts.

9/11 and the Holocaust: Emotional Ties that Obfuscate

Last night President Bush made references to the 9/11 terrorists five times during his 28-minute speech. The focus of the speech was Iraq. So, why the need to mention 9/11?

"The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. "He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."
AP

The obvious answer is to remind the American people why it is necessary for America to continue its "defense of freedom" by fighting terrorism. But, this speech was about Iraq, not about terrorism.

Ever more obvious are the attempts by the Bush administration to link everything to terrorism. Last night's references to 9/11 were blatant emotional triggers meant to "remind" the American public of why the Bush administration goes after countries like Iraq.

In a similar vein, pro-Israeli policy advocates whip out the Holocaust, either directly or indirectly via cries of anti-semitism, to tug on the emotional strings, to remind the world why Israel must "protect" herself. Same song, different verse.

The Bush administration has taken a page right out of the book used in Israel's handling of the Palestinian people. Label your opponent a terrorist or associate your opponent with terrorist acts, whether factual or fabricated doesn't matter, so you can gain the emotional support of your citizens. There will be no peace in the Middle East.

Bottom line is that these are attempts to manipulate the logical analysis of the situation at hand by inserting references to emotionally-charged events clearly meant to obfuscate the issue under discussion. Unfortunately, the strategy appears to work quite well as most people can't seem to get past the emotion to see what is actually unfolding right in front of their eyes.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Government, Iraq, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Politics, Terrorism, War on Terror.

Iraq War's Illegality and Immorality will not be Heard Tonight

Tonight, President Bush will address the American people from Fort Bragg, North Carolina (interesting selection of locale). The live speech will speak to the current Iraq situation, of course spun to minimize political damage. There will likely be mention of Iran and Syria to keep the public from forgetting why at some future date the US will most likely attack or support an attack by Israel. And, there will certainly be no mention of controversial, yet factual, news items.

Several "hot" items have come up in the world press although have received limited air time, if at all, by American media. I'm sure those who have been following the news from more objective news services and aggregators (American Free Press, AntiWar.com, Centre for Research on Globalization, Counter Punch, Information Clearing House, Signs of the Times, Truthout) will be listening closely to see how he dodges the key revelations and accusations.

Take a look at the most significant news items which have disappeared from the American media:

• News of no WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) in Iraq.
  
• Downing Street memo showing a US administration committed to regime change (i.e. war) in Iraq.
  
• Support for Bush and the Iraq War at an all-time low.
  
• Additional memos and testimony indicating the bombing of Iraq started even before congressional approval for the war.
  
• Use of napalm in Iraq.
  
• US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo and Iraq, Afghanistan.
  
• US stalling on requests to allow visits to terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.
  
• CIA caught in the "extraordinary rendition" of an Egyptian.
  
• Non-participation by the US in the World Tribunal on Iraq.
  

Mr. Bush will try to convince the American public of the moral basis and responsibility of America to "spread freedom and democracy", "defeat evil", "win the battle against terror", etc. Yet, for all the righteous spinning of the reasons, one fact will be indisputable: there has been more death and destruction in this war than all the terrorist acts combined.

The American public should instead spend their Tuesday night listening to the proceedings of the World Tribunal on Iraq (compilation of reports available here) or reading the Statement of Principles.

About WTI:

The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) is a worldwide undertaking to reclaim justice. It aims to record the severe wrongs, crimes and violations that were committed in the process leading up to the aggression against Iraq, during the war and throughout the ensuing occupation, that continue to be widespread to this day. It is our intention to also record the social, political, environmental and cultural devastation. In the end, the evidence gathered and presented will serve as a historical record that breaks the web of lies promulgated by the war coalition and its embedded press.

WTI is a horizontal network of local groups and individuals worldwide that work together in a non- hierarchical system. The project consists of commissions of inquiry and sessions held around the world investigating various issues related to the war on Iraq, such as the legality of the war, the role of the United Nations, war crimes and the role of the media.

On June 23rd to the 27th 2005, at the start of the third year of the occupation of Iraq, the culminating session will take place in Istanbul. This session will reach a decision following an examination of the results of the previous sessions as well as new reports and testimonies, while evaluating the implications of the aggression against Iraq for the world at large.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Government, Iraq, News, Politics.

China Viewed More Favorably than US

For most Americans, the belief that, to the rest of the world, the US has always been the model to which all other countries aspire has been ingrained since youth.

America... the land of the free, the home of the brave, where all is possible and achievable if you work hard. The image to the rest of the world exuded the commitment to fairness and equality, the fostering of the entrepreneural spirit, and reserved strength. The quiet, protective kid, possessive of an aura of respect, whom the bully on the block would not even mess with.

That was then. This is now.

What a shock it must be to learn that the America which used to be the envy of the rest of the world, the culture and success to which others would aspire to duplicate, is no longer the America in which we live.

We live in an America despised by a large part of the world for the military actions undertaken by the Bush administrations. An America viewed by the rest of the world as a staunch supporter, financial and political, of Israel and Israeli policy. This unwavering support of Israeli policy, regardless of the facts, may very well be the lit fuse to the powder keg which, when it explodes, will affect millions of people.

The proof of how the world views the US is in the result of a poll where China, even with well documented violations of human rights, is viewed more favorably than the US.

How can this be? Perhaps, the rest of the world, not so easily influenced and manipulated by American media (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, etc.) is forming a much more accurate opinion of today's America.

The poll was conducted by an American organization, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, and surveyed public opinion in 16 countries, including the United States.

The United States' image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that communist China is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many long-time Western European allies, an international poll has found.

The overseas image of the United States slipped sharply after the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Pew polling found, and it has not rebounded in Western European countries like Britain, France, Germany and Spain.CNN

Most people around the world can form an objective opinion of what has happenned to the America which was once highly-regarded. It all boils down to American policy.

The Iraq war remains the leading source of anti-American attitudes despite diplomatic efforts to counter that image.
Kyodo News


The poll, which was released Thursday, found suspicion and wariness of the United States in many countries where people question the war in Iraq and are growing wary of the U.S.-led war on terror.ABC News


Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, said that 16,766 people in 16 nations were interviewed for the project's fourth international survey since 2002. He said America's image has slipped primarily because of the war in Iraq and has shown little sign of improving since it began, either in Europe or in Muslim nations.Toledo Blade


People in other countries who had unfavorable views of the United States were most likely to cite Bush as the reason rather than a general problem with America.

Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state when Bill Clinton was president, said big majorities of the public in these countries are discontented with Bush "and say Bush’s re-election has made them view the United States less favorably."MSNBC


People in most countries were more inclined to say the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. Non-U.S. residents who had unfavorable views of the United States were most likely to cite Bush as the reason rather than a general problem with America.CNN

Most can tell the difference between Americans and American policy. One crucial detail though which must be pointed out. If Americans allow the continuation of the policies which have collapsed the house of respect and admiration for America, the blame should lay solely on our shoulders. To not stand up and speak out in opposition to these belligerent policies is to accept the subsequent consequences.

Don't act surprised when the house that is America collapses. Many have tried to warn all occupants of the dangers, it is now up to the occupants to take whatever steps are necessary to salvage our house or prepare for its demise.


Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Government, News, Politics.

Who Really Owns Your Property?

In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court ruled local governments could seize private property "for private economic development". That is, take an individual's home or business if the local government deems there is the potential for improvement to the local community by replacing your property with one that would provide an increase to the revenue base.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this type of action, seizure of an individual's property, primarily restricted to eminent domain decisions which focused on the public use of the area? Now, it appears the focus is on the increase of revenue, not on the direct benefit to the community.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Never mind the price the affected individual will pay by losing a home, a business, a livelihood. Never mind the property may be the result of years of hard work, perhaps even land passed down from generation to generation.

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

So, in effect, the high court has supported, although in a split decision, the right of a developer over the right of a tax-paying, land-owner legally in possession of the affected property.

Justice O'Connor sums it up nicely:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Once again, individual rights take a back seat to business interests and power brokers. Get used to it or do someting about it.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Go Bill!

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Freedom, Government, Life, News, Politics.