Slashdot Mirror

FFS, read what the original post was about. It was some jerk-off saying that nobody should comment on Bush's leadership if they weren't American citizens.

Also, the US did NOT have a mandate from the UN. Quite the contrary.So go f*ck yourself back. Oh, sorry, you already did. fortunately, China and Japan won't fund your Iran ambitions ... http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si d=aNgW4Fu_8.tI&refer=home

Nobody asked you to go to Iraq - quite the contrary, world opinion was that sanctions and inspections were working. Iraqis want you out - NOW. And forget about Iran ... you haven't got the money to go to war - the US is broke, and the countries that hold half your debt (China, Japan) are slowly selling it off because your dollar is going down the tubes.

Current statutory debt limit: 8.965 trillion. Current debt: 9,009,410,075,859.67. Source - the treasury department : http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?applicat ion=np The US government has been "more than broke" since August 13th. Then again,. its been morally bankrupt since before it first took office.

We're not mad at the American people - its not like people actually voted Bush into office ....

Is http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ this worth it? These soldiers died because you have a criminal for a commander-in-chief. They deserved better leadership.

Sorry to be replying to my own post. But you know all those terrible beheadings? American deaths are estimated to be about 3,742. Compare that to an estimated 71,277 dead Iraqi's. I'm not even trying to take a political stand here, it just seems those violent Islamics might be a minority. And FTR I'm looking into doing IT work abroad, possibly a hot zone so it's not something I take lightly one way or the other (I'll be trained in small arms and will use it if necessary). Just seems a bit off-kilter to blanket a people as being violent with those numbers.

is where wikipedia is the weakest, and most prone to being jacked.

Even without viewing the stub, I recommend that any who visit the link take a long hard look at the history versioning, but even that feature can no longer be fully trusted, as methods have been implemented which allow for the removal of versioning entries by just a few of wikipedia's elites.

Of course they promise to only use that memory hole for good, not evil, and only sparingly, when the data carries with it a taint of defamation or slander, which is extra-especially sensitive when it comes to biographical data of persons living.

I immediately wonder how this could possibly apply to information regarding potential conflicts of interests between a sitting vice-president, who has a known predilection to engage in over the top vindictiveness(he may even roll your wife!), and large international corporations, who have skimmed the top of the classes from America's first-tier Law Universities for their law departments' staff.

,p>Then there is the newest trend in abuse of international tort law being played in a despicably unamerican fashion. It gives one great leverage to those whose have at their beck and call as a staff member, a retained English barrister. Contemporary Conservatism whiny relativism offers illuminative irony though, as it seems the Perles were cast a wee bit before the other swine got into the act.

The Wikimedia Foundation, in their vested survival interests, can do little else but fold. Whitewash by any other name is just a blinding.

and we have always been at war against {fill in blank}...

and the USA is too busy fueling the warfare state.

http://www.antiwar.com/

p.s. to everyone who's mentioned the weak US dollar: it's called inflation, and war is why the USA has a Federal Reserve with fiat currency.

Ron Paul was not "blaming America for 9/11"... you need to listen to what he said again. He simply said that we need to look at reasons for why it happened. If a hornet stings me, I can go and see if I left something lying around to attract the hornets. That would be the smart thing to do. Does that mean I'm to blame? No, the hornet stung me and I will still blame the hornet. But, I want to prevent it from happening again so I'll look to see if I had any part in a contributing factor to the attack.

That's simply what Ron Paul was saying. Look at his history of comments and writings-- he is very patriotic, a 20-year congressman, and he loves America and the Constitution. He was not blaming America at all. That is a straw man that Rudolf set up to make himself look good for the crowd.

The CIA's former head of the bin Laden and al Qaeda unit, Michael Scheuer, had this to say:

"Last week, Representative Paul did all Americans an immense service by simply pointing out the obvious: Our Islamist enemies do not give a damn about the way we vote, think, or live. Though any country they ruled would surely not look like ours, they are motivated by the belief that U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam, its lands, and its believers...

Of the eighteen presidential candidates now in the field from both parties, only Mr. Paul has had the courage to square with the average American voter. We are indeed hated and being warred against because we are over there, and not for what we are and how we live. Our failure to recognize the truth spoken by Mr. Paul and spelled out for us in hundreds of pages of statements by Osama bin Laden since 1996 is leading America toward military and economic disaster.

And no matter how you view Mr. Pauls words, you can safely take one thing to the bank. The person most shaken by Mr. Pauls frankness was Osama bin Laden, who knows that the current status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is al-Qaedas one indispensable ally, and the only glue that provides cohesion between and among the diverse and often fractious Islamist groups that follow its banner."

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/22/fmr-chief-o f-cia-osama-unit-why-they-attack-us/

• An Iron Curtain is Descending on US
  
  
• Cheney: Water torture is OK
  
  
• Bush administration says detainee shouldn't be able to tell attorney how he was tortured in secret CIA prison
  
  
• The United States is now prosecuting suspected terrorists on the basis of their intentions, not just their actions
  
  
• Man arrested for saying "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible"
  
  
• Civil Liberties Advocates' Worst Fears Realized with Patriot Act Scandal
  
  
• Activist, anti-Bush lawyer "falls to death at hotel
  
  
• Abuse and Torture by U.S. troops
  
  
• plenty more, regretfully...
  
  

• An Iron Curtain is Descending on US
  
  
• Cheney: Water torture is OK
  
  
• Bush administration says detainee shouldn't be able to tell attorney how he was tortured in secret CIA prison
  
  
• The United States is now prosecuting suspected terrorists on the basis of their intentions, not just their actions
  
  
• Man arrested for saying "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible"
  
  
• Letter to the editor prompts visit from Secret Service
  
  
• Activist, anti-Bush lawyer "falls to death at hotel
  
  
• Abuse and Torture by U.S. troops
  
  
• plenty more, regretfully...
  
  

You don't think small arms can defeat the U.S. government ask the Iraqi insurgents, hint they are winning and "we" (U.S. neo-con belligerents) are losing. Same thing with the 2nd amendment I think the heavily armed U.S. populace is very capable of defeating our cumbersome top heavy bureaucratic U.S. military in a 4th generation asymmetric guerrilla war.

http://antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702

That's why as a decentralist anti-authoritarian leftist I think the right wing gun nuts (who I disagree with on about everything else) are right about the 2nd amendment as a check on government power.

The United States has a full spectrum of nut groups. And that's just fine.

• White nationalist group
• Black nationalist group
• Pro-Israel nationalist group
• Anti-Israel nationalist group.
• Pro-war
• Anti-war

They keep each other honest.

Was it damaging or actually good for business? Will the forthcoming war in Iran be good for Google business?

Just asking, that's all.

Berezovsky, who employed Litvinenko while he was alive and is using him in death as the symbol of Putin's malignity, is the key figure in all this: the man slain Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov called Russia's "godfather." The real Mafia could learn a thing or two from Berezovsky, who, Klebnikov averred, assassinated his business rivals - one with an obscure nerve toxin - while the authorities stood by and let it happen on account of the oligarch's connections with top Kremlin officials. When Putin rose to power, however, and turned against Berezovsky - his former supporter and patron - the rule of the oligarchs was over. Berezovsky, Nevzlin, and the others fled Russia, and haven't stopped plotting to discredit and ultimately overthrow their nemesis ever since.

Berezovsky, who employed Litvinenko while he was alive and is using him in death as the symbol of Putin's malignity, is the key figure in all this: the man slain Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov called Russia's "godfather." The real Mafia could learn a thing or two from Berezovsky, who, Klebnikov averred, assassinated his business rivals - one with an obscure nerve toxin - while the authorities stood by and let it happen on account of the oligarch's connections with top Kremlin officials. When Putin rose to power, however, and turned against Berezovsky - his former supporter and patron - the rule of the oligarchs was over. Berezovsky, Nevzlin, and the others fled Russia, and haven't stopped plotting to discredit and ultimately overthrow their nemesis ever since.

the whole bush went to war because of oil thing is obviously (to anybody who has half a clue?) bull shit.. Let me know when the extra oil starts rolling in I'm looking forward to the day because then atleast we could fucking say we got SOMETHING out of the deal.. Don't you think?!

You shouldn't get into the line of thinking that anyone who agrees with you 'has a clue' and anyone who doesn't must be clueless.

Anyway, the Iraq war was about more than just oil. It was mostly about the neoconservative/PNAC foreign policy. They tried to pressure Clinton into fighting a war against Iraq too. It's about more than just oil, it's about American military dominance, and the safety of Israel. After 9/11 these people basically converted Bush, who came into office with little to no foreign policy. Of course, now they all blame Bush for what happened, even though they claimed before the war that Iraq would be a cakewalk, and they pushed for it even before Bush was in office.

This message has been brought to you by your friendly PsyOps agent.

Putin == barbaric and ruthless dictator
Bush == protector of democracy worldwide

P.S. George Bush was CIA Director

Kasparov believes that Putin is virtually a dictator who is dismantling democracy and returning Russia to an authoritarian regime.

Berezovsky, who employed Litvinenko while he was alive and is using him in death as the symbol of Putin's malignity, is the key figure in all this: the man slain Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov called Russia's "godfather." The real Mafia could learn a thing or two from Berezovsky, who, Klebnikov averred, assassinated his business rivals - one with an obscure nerve toxin - while the authorities stood by and let it happen on account of the oligarch's connections with top Kremlin officials. When Putin rose to power, however, and turned against Berezovsky - his former supporter and patron - the rule of the oligarchs was over. Berezovsky, Nevzlin, and the others fled Russia, and haven't stopped plotting to discredit and ultimately overthrow their nemesis ever since.

The abu ghraibhttp://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 pictures are the perfect example of how nonphotojournalist can take great pictures. still, professionals are needed, specially to get the pictures we never see(like Darfur or Chechnya).

Ah yes, another tinfoil who is using less-than-circumstantial evidence to try and pin this on the US. After all, we're the EVIL EMPIRE (tm), right?

In an assassination, one must ask: Cui bono? To whose benefit? Who would gain from the poisoning of Litvinenko?

What benefit could Putin conceivably realize from the London killing of an enemy of his regime, who had just become a British citizen? Why would the Russian president, at the peak of his popularity, with his regime awash in oil revenue and himself playing a strong hand in world politics, risk a breach with every Western nation by ordering the public murder of a man who was more of a nuisance than a threat to his regime?

Yet, listening to some Western pundits on the BBC and Fox News, one would think Putin himself poisoned Litvinenko. Who else, they ask, could have acquired polonium-210, the rare radioactive substance used to kill Litvinenko? Who else had the motive to eliminate the ex-agent who had dedicated his life to exposing the crimes of the Kremlin?

To begin with, Litvinenko's own deathbed statement to the contrary, there is no good reason why the KGB would target someone whose wild accusations are no more credible than our own prophets of the "9/11 Truth movement." Here, after all, is a Russian convert to Islam who has accused the Russian security services, specifically the FSB, of bombing Russian cities in an elaborate plot to justify the war on Chechnya and generate political support for Putin's domestic policies. He also claimed that the Russians were behind al-Qaeda and the Beslan massacre: he was sure the KGB trained and funded Ayman al-Zawahiri. He accused Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi of being a Soviet agent, and even went so far as to announce that Putin is a pedophile.

In an assassination, one must ask: Cui bono? To whose benefit? Who would gain from the poisoning of Litvinenko?

What benefit could Putin conceivably realize from the London killing of an enemy of his regime, who had just become a British citizen? Why would the Russian president, at the peak of his popularity, with his regime awash in oil revenue and himself playing a strong hand in world politics, risk a breach with every Western nation by ordering the public murder of a man who was more of a nuisance than a threat to his regime?

Yet, listening to some Western pundits on the BBC and Fox News, one would think Putin himself poisoned Litvinenko. Who else, they ask, could have acquired polonium-210, the rare radioactive substance used to kill Litvinenko? Who else had the motive to eliminate the ex-agent who had dedicated his life to exposing the crimes of the Kremlin?

To begin with, Litvinenko's own deathbed statement to the contrary, there is no good reason why the KGB would target someone whose wild accusations are no more credible than our own prophets of the "9/11 Truth movement." Here, after all, is a Russian convert to Islam who has accused the Russian security services, specifically the FSB, of bombing Russian cities in an elaborate plot to justify the war on Chechnya and generate political support for Putin's domestic policies. He also claimed that the Russians were behind al-Qaeda and the Beslan massacre: he was sure the KGB trained and funded Ayman al-Zawahiri. He accused Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi of being a Soviet agent, and even went so far as to announce that Putin is a pedophile.

In an assassination, one must ask: Cui bono? To whose benefit? Who would gain from the poisoning of Litvinenko?

What benefit could Putin conceivably realize from the London killing of an enemy of his regime, who had just become a British citizen? Why would the Russian president, at the peak of his popularity, with his regime awash in oil revenue and himself playing a strong hand in world politics, risk a breach with every Western nation by ordering the public murder of a man who was more of a nuisance than a threat to his regime?

Yet, listening to some Western pundits on the BBC and Fox News, one would think Putin himself poisoned Litvinenko. Who else, they ask, could have acquired polonium-210, the rare radioactive substance used to kill Litvinenko? Who else had the motive to eliminate the ex-agent who had dedicated his life to exposing the crimes of the Kremlin?

"...To begin with, Litvinenko's own deathbed statement to the contrary, there is no good reason why the KGB would target someone whose wild accusations are no more credible than our own prophets of the "9/11 Truth movement." Here, after all, is a Russian convert to Islam who has accused the Russian security services, specifically the FSB, of bombing Russian cities in an elaborate plot to justify the war on Chechnya and generate political support for Putin's domestic policies. He also claimed that the Russians were behind al-Qaeda and the Beslan massacre: he was sure the KGB trained and funded Ayman al-Zawahiri. He accused Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi of being a Soviet agent, and even went so far as to announce that Putin is a pedophile.

In any case, Lugovoi is part and parcel of the Berezovsky network, and if he had anything to do with the murder then the theory that this was a falling-out among Russian exiles, dressed up to look like a KGB hit, gains credibility. But how, then, does one explain the method utilized: polonium-210, which only a state is likely to have access to?

Then again, if we look at Berezovsky's estimated fortune of some $3 billion, his empire is for all intents and purposes a mini-state. Add to this the assets of other exiled oligarchs, including many who fled to Israel, and you have resources equal to the task of procuring and delivering polonium-210 to any target. Yet this still doesn't rule out state involvement in the operation, even if we assume Litvinenko's death resulted from some internecine squabble within the London-based exile community."

In an assassination, one must ask: Cui bono? To whose benefit? Who would gain from the poisoning of Litvinenko?

What benefit could Putin conceivably realize from the London killing of an enemy of his regime, who had just become a British citizen? Why would the Russian president, at the peak of his popularity, with his regime awash in oil revenue and himself playing a strong hand in world politics, risk a breach with every Western nation by ordering the public murder of a man who was more of a nuisance than a threat to his regime?

Yet, listening to some Western pundits on the BBC and Fox News, one would think Putin himself poisoned Litvinenko. Who else, they ask, could have acquired polonium-210, the rare radioactive substance used to kill Litvinenko? Who else had the motive to eliminate the ex-agent who had dedicated his life to exposing the crimes of the Kremlin?

"The world media is rushing to judgement and condemning Putin as the mad mastermind behind this terrorist act, yet there are some rather big problems with this theory: none of the known suspects are likely KGB assassins. Their loyalties, as far as can be discerned, lie in quite the opposite direction: Lugovoi, who ran afoul of the Putin administration, and Scaramella, whose anti-KGB credentials are apparently impeccable. The prejudices of the media, and the editorial writers, lead us down one path, but the facts - at least as they are known so far - take us down quite another. ...In any case, Lugovoi is part and parcel of the Berezovsky network, and if he had anything to do with the murder then the theory that this was a falling-out among Russian exiles, dressed up to look like a KGB hit, gains credibility. But how, then, does one explain the method utilized: polonium-210, which only a state is likely to have access to?

Then again, if we look at Berezovsky's estimated fortune of some $3 billion, his empire is for all intents and purposes a mini-state. Add to this the assets of other exiled oligarchs, including many who fled to Israel, and you have resources equal to the task of procuring and delivering polonium-210 to any target. Yet this still doesn't rule out state involvement in the operation, even if we assume Litvinenko's death resulted from some internecine squabble within the London-based exile community."

With the hundreds of thousands of soldiers we have lost there

Uh, a little high on your numbers there. According to the Antiwar.com site, around 11k have lost their lives. Still quite a lot, but not quite hundreds of thousands

And yes, there is the equivalent, many equivalents, of Room 101.

But we don't have telescreens in every room that can listen and watch us

...no one, even Coulter, is saying you should be tortured for doing it.

you don't have to guard your facial expression for fear of being tortured in Room 101

f you use up all your superlatives now, if you shout "tyranny" now, what words will you use when it gets worse?

Sometimes it isn't the high frequency edits that need to be watched out for. I am aware of a wikiStub which is a good example. I proffer this one because of its extreme volatility, I have an axe to grind with proponents of both sides of the issue, have not edited any of the mentioned pages, and I have not made up my mind as to the veracity of the claims. (i did mention this page to a contact involved with wikipedia, who had previously asked that i message this sort of thing to an email box)

The stub is Walid Phares, a terrorism expert, and professor of Middle East Studies at Florida Atlantic University.

On March 21, 2006, an edit appeared, which lasted 7 hours, and the rationale for revert was simply, 'nonsense'. The edit claimed that Phares had past ties to the Guardians of the Cedar, but wasn't sourced. This is a serious allegation, and truly warranted a move to the talk page of the stub.

The Phares talk page does have some interesting ravings on it, which are also unsourced, and less than the truth. It also has a pervasive sense of threat, easily chilling discussion. Maybe this sort of content is why many are unwilling to point to their objective instances of objection, as it tends to further tag them.

For the Record, Royer did publish an article alleging the Phares ties, but it is extremely unlikely that he is in anyway responsible for these edits, as he is serving twenty years for violationg a weapons export ban by running weapons to Pakistan. Royer's statement to the court at his sentencing also expressed both his guilt and remorse. He's a ass, and convicted gun runner, but is probably underserving of his depiction on the talk page, which uses extremely biased hot button terminology.

The two edits on the Phares stub I mentioned here, as well as the latest on the talk page from a user, 'Jihadwatch', all seem to be members of the new classSchema for some wikiContributors, the Single purpose account. (First edit - - revert - - jihadwatch)

As I mentioned earlier, I wish to apply a cluestick to almost everyone involved with editing this article, but I'd prefer an honest reach for the truth instead...

Be angry at the sun for setting
If these things anger you.
Watch the wheel slope and turn,
They are all bound on the wheel,
these people, those warriors.
This republic, Europe, Asia.

Observe them gesticulating,
Observe them going down.
The gang serves lies,
the passionate Man plays his part;
the cold passion for truth
Hunts in no pack.
"Be Angry at the Sun" - Robinson Jeffers

Regarding 'equivalent' I did just what you suggest, and got this. Look at 1b. "Having similar or identical effects."

Where we have two words, their is normally such a subtle difference in their meaning. Yes, there's a lot of overlap, but it's not normally exact. Wrong, for instance, is more emphatic than incorrect, and can carry moral judgements, which incorrect does not. Anyhow...

No two acts are ever equivelant in the exact sense you are using. But all acts of murder are essentially equivelant, in the meaning I am using.

As for Roosevelt, amazingly enough, John T. Flynn basically saw through the game even at the time. See The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, written in 1945. But it was the massive declassification of archives in the 90s that allowed Robert Stinnet, a decorated veteran of the Pacific War himself, to progress beyond the informed guess-work of Flynn and really document what happened. It's really quite shocking, and nefarious above even what Flynn could bring himself to believe. Here is a short article he wrote on it, and I highly recommend his book, which sadly is not available online, but is very worth ordering.

thank god , we have the fifth here. the nice thing is that our current gov., like the past, will not violate the constititional rights afforded each of us.

The West is hardly on the verge of collapse because of it. Nor have their actions reduced the presence of Western forces in the Middle East. I hardly think that al-Qaeda is particularly heartened by the U.S. governments increased surveillance of its own people, etc, either.

Sorry, I beg to differ..

But if bin Laden predicted that the U.S. would invade Iraq a year and a half after 9/11, costing way more in money and lives than the more predictable invasion of Afghanistan, then I will grant you that he must be a genius.

He's already had a dry-run. Remember when the World Trade Center was attacked back in 1993? Remember who was president then? Yes, George Bush Sr. Remember what happened during that term? Desert Storm in Iraq. What did we try to do? Depose Saddam Hussein.

Who financed, trained and armed Al Queda back a decade or more ago, to help them push Russia out of Afghanistan? That's right, we did.

Osama knew precisely what would happen if he orchestrated an attack on the US again, while a Bush president was in office.

In the last 30-something presidents, we've seen two attacks on domestic soil from foreign terrorists (if you believe that 9/11 involved these foreign terrorists). Both attacks occured at the World Trade Center. Both attacks were under Bush presidencies. Both attacks resulted in an invasion of Iraq, and the attempted deposing of Saddam Hussein (Saddam, I should add, is theologically opposed to what Osama believes in, and would never support his efforts).

Let's not forget the $9 BILLION dollars that was lost after being hand-flown to Iraq, and the resulting investigation that Bush is trying to halt.

Google up the references, its all out there. Its all scary stuff.

The other side of the story.

the first page on google is your friend (or maybe foe)
Israelis accused of 'human shields' tactic : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/52128 70.stm
Israel's supreme court says the use of Palestinian human shields in arrest raids violates international law : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/43148 98.stm
A five-year-old boy is shot dead in Gaza as Israeli human rights activists condemn troops for the alleged use of "human shields : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/21951 55.stm
.. the young man, who was said to have had no political affiliations, was used as a "human shield" by the Israelis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/21937 59.stm
Use of Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields by the Israeli Army: http://www.adalah.org/eng/humanshields.php
Israeli soldiers who took over the buildings used the occupants as human shield: http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060 720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp
The Human Shields of Nazareth : http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=933 3
The Israeli army has signalled its intention to keep using Palestinian civilians as human shields in operations : http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8431605A-2F 44-4282-8037-E8B53A529EB9.htm

We know from the NSA warrantless wiretapping program that the government is not limiting itself to access to under court orders, and the CALEA bill must be considered in light of the capacity it generates. [...] Most of the wiretaps—81 percent—dealt with drug crimes. Second on the list was racketeering. Homicide came third. Gambling was fourth. What's missing here? Terrorism.

Haven't we learned any lessons from the hideous Bolsheviks?*

____________________
* Peter Holquist, "'Information Is the Alpha and Omega of Our Work': Bolshevik Surveillance in Its Pan-European Context," Journal of Modern History, 69: 3 (September 1997), pp. 415-450.

Let me see if I get this straight...

1. Man gets property broken into more than once
2. Man installs camera and warning signs on property to thwart future break-ins
3. Cops arrive at man's house on unrelated issue to talk to 15-year old son
4. Man is uncooperative and cops try to get into the house by sticking foot in door
5. After refusing entry, cops promise to return with a warrant
6. Man reminds cops that there is a camera recording them at the doorstep
7. Man reports abusive officers to precinct with videotape in hand to prove it
8. Man is arrested for 'wiretap fraud', a felony in the US of A.

Let's parallel that with another person we all know so well:

1. Holding over 300 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay prison without charging them with a crime for years on end
2. Ok'd the illegal NSA wiretap over 30 times, and would do it again. After 5 years of monitoring every single Internet packet, they are exposed and hide the details under the guise of 'State Secrets'.
3. 5+ years of bank data was secretly funneled and reviewed without a warrant or subponea
4. Signed over 750 Signing Statements, more than double the number of ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS combined
5. Advocated, financed and supported the torture of innocent people in the name of 'national security', and tries to pass a signing statement to legalize torture.
6. Funded an illegal war to depose the leader of Iraq, so we could use Iraq as a base from which to stage a local air strike against Iran and Syria for oil. Doing daddy's work, apparently.
7. Lost $9 BILLION dollars in Iraq, then halts the investigation into it.
8. Openly stated that the Constitution is ...just a goddamn piece of paper, and continues to violate it every day.
9. ...and dozens more.

Tell me why again, this one citizen, who is protecting his property (yes, he's been verbally abusive to the cops before, but verbal abuse is not a felony or a crime, in fact, unless you directly threaten the safety of the officers or someone else) is arrested, and this unqualified, election-rigging, law-breaking "individual" is still allowed to run this country into the ground?

The other ironic point to this madness, is that the current rhetoric is that this country is 'safer now than it has ever been'. However, the truth is that this country is now more unstable, partisan, fractured than it has ever been.

There have only been TWO terrorist attacks on domestic soil by foreign terrorists in the last 40 PRESIDENTS.. and get this:

1. Both attacks occurred were under Bush presidency (Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. 10 years later)
2. Both attacks occurred at the Twin Towers (basement on the first attack, from the air on the second attack)
3. Both attacks resulted in an immediate deployment to Iraq shortly after (Desert Storm, War in Iraq)
4. Both attacks resulted in the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power (second one deemed successful)
5. Both attacks implicated Iraqis in the scandal (Saudi's attacked TT, not Iraqis)
6. Both ended up in senseless wars where thousands of innocent soldiers died

The end is near for the Bush regime, thanks to 5 states now signing onto the Articles of Impeachment to get this dropout out of office. Now if we cou

I read this site fairly regularly, as well as this one. I'm not really sure why I do...the entertainment factor mostly.

The thing that I often find truly painful when reading such sites however are the moronic adult children who somehow think they're going to change the world purely by submitting a story to a blog, so that their fellow adolescents can then bitch, whine, and post self-congratulatory leftist screeds in response. Another thing these same imbeciles do is insist on continuing in the delusion that the American system of government is still functional.

I'd be willing to bet good money that the "blogosphere" (even that word contains an overestimation of importance) by itself has done exactly jack shit when it has come to changing the actions of any government or corporation anywhere. How exactly is it *meant* to change anything by simply (completely on its' own) expressing your opinion?

I'm now going to probably cause people to label me a hypocrite here when I admit that I have a blog, which yes, I even update once every four months or so. The difference however is that I have no illusions whatsoever about it; I realise that my blog is completely devoid of any genuine relevance or importance...and so is everyone else's.

Sounds like someone needs to educate themselves.
I have read the downing street memo. Have your read any of these?
here
here
and here

Bush and the Neo-cons don't give a fuck about any facts. If they say the sky is not blue, you are expected believe it as a matter of faith, even if the Neo-cons do not believe it themselves.

Ding, ding, mod parent up. The people of Nazi Germany thought they were free too:

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.h tml

the dirty secret of successful totalitarian control is rooting out the dissidents quietly while making sure the people who go along with it think "if I'm not doing anything "wrong" what do I have to worry about...?" Keep a constant watch on the watchers, some good resources to start:

Libertarian/Paleo right

http://antiwar.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.amconmag.com/

Moderate:

http://buzzflash.com/
http://moveon.org/

Left:

http://counterpunch.org/
http://commondreams.org/
http://indymedia.org/

That should keep you busy for a while...

Students at the Tianamen square were but a tiny ant's piss: they did and do not represent significant proportion of chinese as whole. His point is entirely valid: if enough chinese did want things we in the west take for granted, they would get it. They don't, at least not yet.

You really don't have clue about the scale of it do you. There were protest up to 100,000 people in the streets of Beijing early May. And there were protests in every major cities in China during the month. If you weren't old enough to read in 1989 you can do it now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989

2600 died and 30000 injuried over one single night. That's about the same number on the war with iraq since 2003. That's an ant's piss to you eh?

And if those steely eyed mo-fos "whack" an innocent family you just recruited yourself a hundred new enraged Al Queda terrorists, that sure helped didn't it? How about we leave people in the middle east to their own fate and become old school paleo-con non interventionists and working on kicking the foreign oil addiction, hmmmmm...

How about a left-right alliance to protect the constitution and stop interventionist wars? We need to to do something to break out of the dumbocracy of both Dems and Repigs who strip us of our rights without even blinking.

See for example: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/eddlem.php?articleid=8 966

Just "panties on the head", eh?

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

More photos

Beatings, electric shocks, dog maulings, physical and psychological abuse.

Or, maybe you like to refer to them by their more "patriotic" name: "Freedom tickles"?

Okay, maybe he doesn't have as much chance of getting the Democratic nomination, but I really think people overestimate Hillary Clinton's chance of winning a general election. (And if she does win, what then? Does the antiwar movement decide "to go along to get along?" Will she roll back the Patriot Act or the vicious anti-immigrant legislation currently wending it's way through Congress? "We can't risk the Republicans retaking the White House," is a refrain that I expect to hear often in the unlikely even she wins.)

CATO's fervent anti-interventionism is a thing of the past.

I find the summary to be borderline trollish flaimbait. It seems to draw the conclusion that the U.S. committee that approved the ports deal supports Arabs but when it comes to Israelis, it rejects the deal. Many have already clearly pointed out in the comments that the security of our ports still must conform to U.S. standards and is open to surprise spotchecks whenever they are necessary. Our ports, our soil but the profits go to a foreign company--in this case the UAE--instead of a local American firm. Ports in Oakland, California are owned by the Danes as are many other such operations. The Arabs in the UAE have a vested interest in making sure that the port succeeds to the sake of profits. Another little cited but obvious fact is that when a foreign company puts money into a tangible asset such as a port or bonds, etc. then the United States can sieze that money if it suspects terrorism. To draw a Arab versus Israeli bias at this point is ludicrious. I'm actually surprised the summary didn't go as far as to call the U.S. committee anti-Semitic as so often happens when something doesn't go Israel's way. The problem is that an executive on Sourcefire's board happens to be the author of Snort. Snort is used to protect many computer systems within the government and military. Knowing how slow these beaurocracies move means that if the Israeli company were to find holes in snort, they could spy on U.S. systems. Would Israel spy on the United States? Yes, it has happened before. Links are available here and here (An Israeli mainstream paper!) and here and here (disappeared, linkrot? google cache of article.

When Arial Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel, openly bragged on October 3rd that, "We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it", why should I not find this statement objectionable, and anti-American? I whole-heartedly support this inquiry because the Israelis cannot be trusted with our (American) interests.

I find the summary to be borderline trollish flaimbait. It seems to draw the conclusion that the U.S. committee that approved the ports deal supports Arabs but when it comes to Israelis, it rejects the deal. Many have already clearly pointed out in the comments that the security of our ports still must conform to U.S. standards and is open to surprise spotchecks whenever they are necessary. Our ports, our soil but the profits go to a foreign company--in this case the UAE--instead of a local American firm. Ports in Oakland, California are owned by the Danes as are many other such operations. The Arabs in the UAE have a vested interest in making sure that the port succeeds to the sake of profits. Another little cited but obvious fact is that when a foreign company puts money into a tangible asset such as a port or bonds, etc. then the United States can sieze that money if it suspects terrorism. To draw a Arab versus Israeli bias at this point is ludicrious. I'm actually surprised the summary didn't go as far as to call the U.S. committee anti-Semitic as so often happens when something doesn't go Israel's way. The problem is that an executive on Sourcefire's board happens to be the author of Snort. Snort is used to protect many computer systems within the government and military. Knowing how slow these beaurocracies move means that if the Israeli company were to find holes in snort, they could spy on U.S. systems. Would Israel spy on the United States? Yes, it has happened before. Links are available here and here (An Israeli mainstream paper!) and here and here (disappeared, linkrot? google cache of article.

When Arial Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel, openly bragged on October 3rd that, "We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it", why should I not find this statement objectionable, and anti-American? I whole-heartedly support this inquiry because the Israelis cannot be trusted with our (American) interests.

They already did, the editor of that Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten is buddy, buddy, with American neo-con Daniel Pipes see:

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512

Switch: "There is no moderate Islam, because there is no voice for it. The entire
religion is held hostage by the "few radical leaders"."

To: "There is no moderate Republican, because there is no voice for it. The entire
party is held hostage by the "few radical leaders" and it's EQUALLY true.

A pox on BOTH the radical Muslims burning buildings over a cartoon AND the radical neo-cons demonizing all of Islam in the run up to the inevitable attack on Iran. The Dutch newspaper editor who originally published these cartoons is closely tied to the American neo-con Daniel Pipes who is viruantly anti Islamic and in cohoots with Rupert Murdoch of /The Weekly Standard/Fox/PNAC fame:

"Rose [editor of the Dutch newspaper that published the cartoons] is apparently a big fan of Daniel Pipes - the controversial anti-Arabist appointed by George W. Bush to the U.S. Institute of Peace - and authored an entirely uncritical profile of Pipes, originally published in Jyllands-Posten and translated here.

Pipes is the founder of Campus Watch, an organization devoted to stamping out any and all academic treatments of Middle Eastern affairs that don't conform to his narrow strictures, which might be mildly described as fanatically hostile to Islam, Arabs, and anyone who opposes his extreme Israeli nationalism. Campus Watch is engaged in compiling blacklists of professors who refuse to spout the pro-Israel party line, and actively encourages students to spy on their teachers and report miscreants."

http://antiwar.com/justin/

Both the Mullahs and the neo-cons are setting us up for a war and only a fool believes ANY word from EITHER of their mouths even "a" "and" "the."

Dumbass did you read what I said?

"Racist, sacrilegious, cartoons help no one, whether it's intentional desecrations of Islam or anti-Semitic cartoons published in the Arab world BOTH should be morally condemned."

It's precisely this mindless hatred of Muslims that is exemplified by your post has me terrified. And no of course the radical Mullahs who are ALSO taking advantage of the situation aren't helping.

We are seeing a lot of bad players on BOTH sides, I know that's hard to swallow when our elected leader talks like a 3rd grader pretending to be a cowboy about "smokin' out dem bad guys." In the real world unfortunately there is a lot more gray that is missed by BOTH anti semitic racist Mullahs who inflame people to burn down buildings AND racist neo-cons who inflame hatred of all Muslims when 99% are not involved in this controversy at all. Again Qui bono, who gains by inflaming hatred against Muslims in the run up to a war against Iran?

I would note as well that racist cartoons were one of the mechanisms the Nazis used to inflame hatred against the Jews. BOTH the anti-Muslim right and the anti semitic Arabs need to cut it out before we wind up in a pointless war that mainly benefits a rich chosen few. You can bet the owners of the oil companies are laughing with glee at the stupid antics of both sides as they draw up their war plans. We can and must do better. And don't just think this is some sort of left issue of political correctness IMO some of the best critiques of the neo-cons war plans come from Pat Buchanan's American Conservative magazine

http://www.amconmag.com/

And the Libertarian right: http://antiwar.com/

Another hero in our fight for rationality against mindless (unconstitutional) "patriotism" has been Republican Ron Paul, and former deputy treasury secretary under Reagan Paul Craig Roberts who has stretched himself enough to write for the leftist http://counterpunch.org/

We must approach this in a nuanced sophisticated fashion, allowing ourselves to be manipulated by EITHER simple minded mullahs or war mongering neo-cons will only lead to the world wide bloodshed of WWIII.

"The American people are being lied to and they simply accept it."

Way to prove yourself Leftist. Seems all the Left can do recently is create their own realities.

The American Right increasingly uses the logic of non sequitur and ad hominen in their less than substantive attacks upon the left. Ironic, as well as a further indication of Contemporary Conservatism's continuing plunging fall into the abyss of moral relevance, which began in 1968 when Nixon played his "southern strategy", and openly courted the racist vote.

One ugly godawful thing to have done to the party of Lincoln.

Nixon won, and the GOP has never looked back. Now neoconivving trotskyites speak for contemporary conservatives, and self-confessed American traitors are welcomed with open arms in under the Big Circus Tent of Republican Inclusiveness, the party of nothing, for everybody.

Ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe there are people out there that want to kill American citizens? Pre-emption is the only way to stop some of them.

Ever stop to think that maybe some people who wish to harm Americans are reacting self-defensively to previous Administrations' wrongful actions against them? You solution for this is 10 eyes for an eye?

And he spake a parable unto them,
Can the blind lead the blind?
shall they not both fall into the ditch?
--Luke 6:39

Abu Ghraib, torture? You should really look up the internation definition of torture, Abu Ghraib was humiliating but certainly not torture. If you've got an axe to grind, then use the right stone.

    Yeah, humiliating alright. Sheeze.