Slashdot Mirror

The people doing this are almost certainly not supporters of the "Democrats". If you read their own post then you'll see the following statement:

There is good reason behind this sentiment. Kerry is on his own admission pro-War, pro-tax cuts, anti-gay marriage. He's a fellow Skull&Bones member like George W. Bush. Basically he's a right-wing candidate wearing the friendly clown-face as opposed to G.W.B. who wears the sad clown face.

I can't possibly sum up the disgusting history of the Democratic Party (and hence the hypocrisy, blindness and ignorance of anyone that posits them as an alternative to the Republicans), but if you're actually interested (instead of wanting a yes-it-is-no-it-isn't exchange) then I recommend reading _Dime's Worth of Difference_ by Jeffrey St.Clair and Alexander Cockburn. Here are a couple of tastes of it.

By the way, what's the name of that "hackers and hippies" party? I want to vote for them!

I don't think being emigrants from North Africa makes these particular angry people any less in France.

I didn't claim that. I was just adding further context to the discussion. I didn't make any arguments. I quoted the grandparent only to give context. Take away from it what you will.

However, I would argue that you can and should make a distinction between different types of people in any given country, including France. I think it's an important distinction. It's pretty hard to argue that all Frenchpeople are uniformly the same.

Furthermore, the response of a government to subsections of its populace is what is in question in this particular discussion, therefore I brought up the issue of what subsection of the French population is involved.

I recommend you read the article, I think you'll find it interesting.

A quite different phenomenon is the North-African war conducted on European soil. Young Muslims from North Africa are battling young Jews from North Africa. That started back home, when the Jews supported the French regime against the freedom fighters. In the last phase, the Jewish underground organization was the mainstay of the opposition to the liberation of Algeria. (The organization was set up by Israeli agents to defend the Jews, but the leaders gradually migrated to Israel and the organization was left in the hands of the most rabid Arab-haters.)

Now this confrontation has become a local offshoot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Muslims are enflamed by TV pictures of the oppression and humiliation enforced by our soldiers in the occupied territories, while the Jewish organizations support the Sharon government. Most Jews in France are emigrants from North Africa. This causes many incidents and creates the impression that anti-Semitism is on the rise.

"So which is it? The brownskins? The US senators? Elderly men? People with "funny clothes"?"

The answer is pretty simple. Its whomever the people running the system decide they want to target. You see it is a system that is the first stage of implementing the plot line of Minority Report. You see it is a system striving to predict the future and to apprehend people prior to committing a crime. The only problem is the Department of Homeland Security lacks the prescients Tom Cruise had to draw on so it is a system even more fallible than it was in the movie. They are attempting to predict the future predicated either whimsy, so it is whimsical as in the case of the infirm old man, or malevolence which is far more likely the case for Senator Kennedy who is the most vitriolic and famous critic of the people that just happen to own the no fly list.

There is a precedent for prescient security, an earlier attempt, that dates back to 1950, the last time Republicans held power in Congress. It was the Detention Act of 1950:

Sec. 103. (a) Whenever there shall be in existence such an emergency, the President, acting through the Attorney General, is hereby authorized to apprehend and by order detain, pursuant to the provisions of this title, each person as to whom there is reasonable ground to believe probably will engage in, or probably will conspire with others to engage in, acts of espionage or of sabotage,

You see it says people can be detained if there is "belief" that they "will" engage in espionage or sabotage. It is impossible for someone to defend themselves against such a belief or disprove that they wouldn't, at some point in the future, have engaged in criminal activity had they not been detained.

Actually the history of prescience U.S. security enforcement that goes back to World War II and the Japanese Exclusion Act, when the U.S. government stripped Japanese Americans of most of their property and their rights as they herded them in to concentration camps because there was a "belief" they "might" engage in sabotage or espionage (substitute terrorism today).

As I recall the Detention Act of 1950 was repealed in 1971, when the Democractic Congress was trying to rain in the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, etc, but it is a concept that has interestingly largely returned since 9/11 once again thanks mostly to the Republicans and was referenced in the recent Supreme Court briefs on the aborted hearing on the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who is being held by the Bush administration in contravention of the Constition, due process and civil liberties American's are under the illusion they have. Mr. Padilla may be a bad man but its unclear if he's actually ever done anything illegal. He is in effect being held for future crime.

P.S.

I rather doubt Senator Kennedy's targeting was the accident Homeland Security says it is. It was most probably a delightfully funny way for the Bush administration to send him a signal that they don't appreciate the fact that he is the most vocal critic of the Bush administration in Congress and they can make him suffer for it so he will think twice the next time. Someone cited a passage from the Constitation pointing out it is illegal to prevent a Congressman from traveling to Congress. The forefathers were pretty prescient because they knew if they didn't put in that clause the party in power could use travel restrictions against the party out of power to deny them access to the making of laws. Unfortunately it appears today the no fly list could be used precisely to do just that. It is also almost certainly being used to blacklist less famous critics of the Bush administration

Iraq asked us to stay: Do you mean the Iraqi's or the U.S. installed interim government?

Saddam was a cruel, murderous dictator: Why don't we take out the other murderous regimes? The Turkish seem to be a good fit.Oh wait, we've been giving them millions in military aid during the last decade, and we've been trying to get them in the EU. Hardly the same treatment that Saddam received for his similar atrocities.

And, uh, you're use of the word "fact" is not very accurate. They're opinions, or just plain wrong. As I said, it was the interim government, not Iraq (that would imply strong majority support of the populace) that asked us to stay, and it's *your* opinion tht Saddam had to be taken out. So, that whole line there is laughable.

I only assumed you listened to Hannity, O'Rielly or Limbaugh since they are the *main* purveyors of such ridiculous trash as you've been spewing. Hardly hypocritical to make an assumption. I never claimed that you were wrong for making one. Lookup hypocrite.

I just find it odd that even before the war started, we were building an oil pipeline through Kuwait up to Iraq. Don't you find that odd?

Another oil pipeline, suited for the U.S. More.

Hey, at least you do believe oil played a roll. There's hope for you yet.

Anyway, I'm not irked. I'm laughing at your expense. I find your attempts at logic enjoyably bad, and your "knowledge" of the world so sorely lacking that it is on the verge of hilarity. So, please don't stop.

Hey, moron!

Refute anything I said, or fuck right the hell off.

First of all, where did I say such a conspiracy requires "hundreds or even thousands" of people? What I described requires almost NO people - a few higher ups in the FBI and the CIA, and a lot compartmentalization in the lower ranks?

You don't think the FBI covered up fore-knowledge of the events? Read anything about Sibel Edmonds. Read Coleen Rowly's memo to the FBI director here

It's the brainless "remote airplane" conspiracy theories that postulate hundreds of passengers "disappearing" that require a lot of people to be quieted. My explanation requires none of that. All of it was done by a few Mossad assets and a handful of criminals employed by the CIA. The actual attack and other related activities were carried out by the Al Qaeda patsies who knew nothing (which, based on the article, seems to be their chronic condition.)

You want to see how far the Pentagon would go to fake an attack on the US? Google for the "Northwoods documents". Most of the sites carrying them are rightwing loony sites but the documents themselves are genuine.

You want to see how far Israel will go to put intelligence agents in the United States? Read this

You're just another ignorant "citizen" who gets his news from Fox and thinks he's "well-informed".

I've often wondered how people reconcile the contradiction between calling themselves Republican and continuing to worship the ground George W. walks on, since he's sold most of the principals of conservatism and the old Republican party down the river.

My dad is the staunchest Republican ever and yesterday he said he decided he was voting against Bush...my jaw dropped...since he ALWAYS votes Republican. For him the last straw was he can't tolerate George W. constantly injecting religion in to his public duties. For him religion is personal and it should never be allowed to creep in to public service. I'm afraid he may have to find a new party since it appears extremist Christians, you know they are like extremist Muslims except they are Christian, seem to have taken over the Republican party.

Anyway I was reading this this story on Linux insider and was interested to see there is actually a theory that seeks to explain how people can maintain fanatical devotion to a lost cause in fact of overwhelming evidence they are wrong, its Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. This article is actually councilling Linux fanatics to refrain from constantly bashing Windows, especially SP2.

From the article:

"In brief, however, the theory makes two critical predictions. First, people will try to strengthen existing beliefs by rejecting contrary information and actively seeking out supportive information. Second, the energy believers put into doing this will increase as the boundaries between believers and others get stronger."

"In other words, opposition strengthens belief and the more people believe in something, the harder they'll fight to keep that belief no matter how obvious the increasing absurdity of their beliefs and actions might be to the uninvolved."

"Festinger's best example of this process at work involves the response to failed religious prophecy: Do "world enders" change their opinions the day after it doesn't end? You'd think so, but they don't. On the contrary, they change the due date and double their efforts to convince others that their unique knowledge conveys or reflects moral superiority."

So it appears the Bush faithful, though they have encountered case after case that should have shattered their faith in George W. have crossed over a line where these traumas compel them to look ever harder to find reason to justify their faith.

Here for example is a pretty good run down of the probable reality of George W. services in the National Guard. His service should shatter all faith staunch republicans have in him since they cherish there military service. If a Democratic candidate had this record the Republican's would be pilloring him over all day every day. Kerry's service record is way less bad but the media is constantly beating him up over it and they say next to nothing about Bush's military disgrace.

Before all you right wingers hit that reply button to flame me in to charcoal just stop and think for a minute if maybe you've fallen in to the trap of cognitive dissonance.

Last night CSPAN was running ACLU speeches by Richard Clark and Bob Barr in particular. If you know Bob Barr he is one of the more rabid conservatives known to man. It was a mind blowing experience to see him addressing the ACLU and state the obvious, the Bill of Rights is already an endangered species and heading to extinction. He is the staunchest Republican and he mauled the Bush administration, state and local governments and the ever expanding corpratist cultures that is devastating the civil liberties staunch conservatives cherish so much. If I hadn't known who he was I would have though he was a flaming liberal but then I remembered the true conservatives on the far right and the left have pretty much been united by the massive danger the new Republican party poses to the U.S. constitution. If CSPAN replays the ACLU speeches from July Barr's speech and Richard Clark's are good oratory.

"He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home."

"...engagements that earned him bronze and silver stars"???!

Do you really know the circumstances under which he received those awards? ( leave alone the very idea of getting rewarded in a situation/environment in which you are there to _kill_ people. )

What Kerry Really Did in Vietnam

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html

"How long were you there, my friend?"

Is that supposed to be some sort of indolent sarcasm??

Well, golly - because it's probable that the poster didn't spend any time in vietnam - he surely has no business disparaging Kerry's time there... That Kerry chose to go. That Kerry chooses to shamelessly politicize (i.e. whore out ) his time there. That Kerry quite likely didn't earn a damn thing while there, regardless of what he was handed.

As far as the topic as the two so called "candidates" being mostly the same, I believe Chomsky stated it quite well recently:

In the forthcoming presidential elections in the US, there is a choice: between two candidates who were born to wealth and political power, attended the same elite university, joined the same secret society that instructs members in the style and manners of the rulers, and are able to run because they are funded by largely the same corporate powers.

"At least 209 Greens in 27 states hold elected office as of July 2004."

Uh, those are city council, a few mayors, school boards etc, mostly in very liberal cities, mostly in California. I think I saw one state legislator in the whole list. Give me a ring when they have a contingent at a state house large enough to influence legistlation or elect some one to governor or the House of Representatives.

Here is a write up by one of their own on their recent presidential nominating fiasco to balance the rosy picture from their web site. I can dig up some more on what a mess they are on the national level. I'll give you they have some successful local efforts in very left enclaves scattered around the country but that isn't going to take them anywhere on a national stage.

In my heart I really wish they could compete on the national stage but its really just not very realistic unless they find some extremely charismatic and powerful candidate that will attract attention at a state or national level and overcome the fact that the media is going to ignore anyone other than Jesse, Ralph or Ross.

"...they had special badges..."

What a concept. Lay your hands on a "special badge", by knocking a secret service agent on the head in the john if no other way and you have a blank check to slice your way through security. Might not be so hard to do if there is any truth to this guys report from the DNC in boston that caught pictures of someone drinking in a hotel bar and then driving away in a government car with a Homeland security/Secret Service placard. The guy that wrote this skewered the security in Boston for its incompetence and Homeland Security responded by shutting down the TSCM Yahoo list where he posted it, acquired the names of everyone on the list and everything ever said on on the list instead of fixing all the security holes he highlighted and saying thank you.

I'm increasingly getting the impression all these national security events are an utter joke. They appear to be a massive waste of money, often aren't providing real security, and are severely trampling people's civil liberties, for example allowing random searches of people on Boston mass transit. In Boston, where they hoped the DNC would be an economic boon, it actually hammered the local economy and put them 8 million in the hole instead of up $150 million as they'd hoped, thanks to the massive disruption the Feds created in Boston.

It appears this may in fact be a power grab by universities in Texas and New Mexico to wrest control of the labs from that liberal whacko Univertisty of California. Have to wonder if the Texas White House might like this idea and.

You also have to wonder if the security problem is fabricated or blown out of proportion to justify the move. This contract is probably a huge financial and prestige boon to the university and state that gets it.

I don't think it really matters what the target of this investigation did or didn't do, except the key fact that it had nothing to do with terrorism. They key point here is it shows how much the Patriot act broadened the DOJ's powers in areas that have NOTHING to do with preventing terrorism.

On a tangent here is an interesting article on Homeland Security trying to enforce security through obscurity in the physical world and the virtual world too. Someone walked around the DNC and took photos of all the weaknesses in the security in Boston and posted it on a list on Yahoo. Homeland security shut down the list and is collecting the names of everyone on the list and everything said. Should give you pause before joining any list in these dangerous times. These actions are designed to silence everyone who is critical of the government.

Welcome to the slippery slope. Watch that first step.

"how much expertise would be needed to catch that?"

Uh, not much. If the weapons aren't hitting the mark on the firing range they probably wouldn't get deployed until they are fixed.

This is probably a poor example. The danger isn't in OSS that is designed to fail. If it doesn't work it wouldn't get used. The danger is an obscure security hole that would allow infiltration.

The key point where this guys whole argument falls apart is that proprietary software isn't any better. I'm confident Microsoft employs a small army of foreigners, and I'm not sure they would be any more reliable than OSS developers and their code gets a lot less scrutiny, and absolutely none if you are a customer getting binaries. Most big companies are putting R&D centers in India and China. How do they assure us the people they are hiring don't have ulterior motives.

If you want to develop software critical to national security you have to develop it in a classified lab with cleared employees. Oh but wait, in spite of all the scrutiny people with get security clearances get, they also turn out to be foreign agents and do great damage. Los Alamos doesn't exactly have a stellar security record and those people get more scrutiny than anyone. The Navy's comsec and has been massively compromised in the past.

I'd argue the opposite case from this guy. If you want secure software the best approach is to have as many people possible, both OSS and governemnt, scrutinize the source. If you find a project that is intentionally or negligently checking in compromised code black list them or give them extra scrutiny. The NSA's secure linux effort is an example of the government making sure OSS is secure and its way more likely to be that, than anything Microsoft or Green Hills is going to give them.

On a tangent here is an interesting article on Homeland Security trying to enforce security through obscurity in the physical world. Someone walked around the DNC and took photos of all the weaknesses in their security in Boston and posted it on a list on Yahoo. Homeland security shut down the list and is collecting the names of everyone on the list and everything said. Should give you pause before joining any list in these interesting times.

Because, obviously if we supply brain damaged people with a non-violent means of satisfying their uncontrollable urges, those people afflicted with this horrible compulsion might STOP KIDNAPPING AND RAPING CHILDREN!

So, obviously, we need to deny all non-physical gratification to paedophiles, and encourage them to act out their desires, so that people will have something to pontificate self-righteously about on the Internet.

But, why answer the question when you can just mod the questioner "flamebait"? It's so much easier. (I only posted this because I ran out of mod points.)

Another system is in France. Quoted from this article, describing the 2002 French presidential election:

"According to French polling rules, the presidential elections, a direct vote for the candidate, takes place in a two-step election process. The top two finalists meet a second time in run-off elections, which is how Le Pen has managed to face off with current President Jacques Chirac for the top job. The process allows for alliances to take shape in the two-week period between polling, just as it guarantees a majority vote."

Then there are also countries where you are obligated to vote by law, such as Australia and Belgium. Many may say this doesn't sound 'fair', but at it least it gets the people who wouldn't bother voting, either out of disinterest or laziness, to act, even if it is just turning up and not filling the check-boxes.

Fortean Times, Private Eye, Macworld, Blender and Revolver.

I used to read Counterpunch, but got tired of Cockburn.

Donald Kaul writes about Martha Stewart's error

It would be best to state:

Dear Sirs: Please be assured of my sincere desire to co-operate with you. "Because of what happened to Martha Stewart, I don't feel I can answer any oral questions at all unless I clear all your questions with a criminal lawyer. Please submit all your questions in writing, and I will get back to you. Please sign this letter below as a receipt for your copy of this document and as evidence that I gave you no information whatsoever in this or any other interview." _______________________-DATED: __________ NAME & OFFICIAL POSITION OF QUESTIONER ID # telephone number address:

You sure it is even (exclusively) Americans doing stuff like that... Abu Graib Guard showing off a tattoo

That's not evidence of Dubya's virtue, that's evidence of the virtue of the US system, which at least makes an attempt at guaranteeing free elections, and prohibits staying in for more than two terms. Saddam racked up the bodycount that he did because he's been in since 1978.

And the US system also ensures that the power is spread across a cabinet. So it's meaningless to compare a US President's criminal record with that of an Iraqi dictator, who has no "last-call" bell when 8 years are up. Rather, the comparison should be between the current cabinet and Saddam: Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Negroponte , etc.

"Last I checked there weren't any mass graves filled with turkish insurgents on GWB's resume."

If you're talking about the Kurds, I would give several people in the current White House full credit for their part in this. And full credit for helping Saddam brutally crush the Shia uprising too, ensuring that he stayed in power.
Saddam couldn't have done it on his own.

I don't suppose it occurred to you that maybe the U.S. is doing things that makes people really hate you, though its your government more than the people, but the people are culpable in supporting that government with votes, tax dollar, soldiers and going along with it. I think I should point out people don't hate you for what you do "here" assuming as in the U.S. They hate you for what you are doing "there" by constant intervention, invasion, manipulation or occupation of their homelands.

You seem to be saying people hate the U.S. only because they've been "brainwashed" in to it. You seem to be echoing the Bush administration line that the people attacking the U.S. are attacking it because of its "Freedom" which simply isn't the case.

The number one reason the Arab world hates the U.S. is because it has for more than a half century backed Israel at every turn, against the Palastinians, an arab people suffering under a brutal occupation if they are still in their homeland or who are scattered around the middle east and the world, often in squalid refugee camps, in a diaspora like that inflicted on the Jews so long ago. Here is a little history. The Palastinians certainly have some bad people and done some bad things but the Arab world is always going to hate the U.S., with reason, until the U.S. finds a balanced position and helps compel an equitable peace there, equitable being defined as one where both sides are equally unhappy, and one isn't living under the thumb of the other. A few weeks ago when Bush took it upon himself to give parts of the West Bank to Israel, acting like he even had the authority to make concessions on behalf of the Palastinians, he pushed a bunch more Arab moderates in to the hands of the extremists who hate the U.S.

Another reason many Arabs hate the U.S. is because the U.S. put troops in the middle of their holyland, Saudi Arabia, after the first Gulf War and has been propping up brutal and corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. U.S. troops are infidels in this region, they are Christians, Jews and liberated women. The people in the region react to them about the same way Americans would react if an Arab or Hindu army were camped in the bible belt. They're pissed.

Perhaps the Taliban form of Islam is extreme but its really very close to Islam in Saudi Arabia, its just the U.S. chooses to pretend its different. Saudi Arabia beheads people in public, they cut off their hands, they repress women so why aren't you upset about that. The women with the greatest equality in the Middle East were in Saddam's Iraq, a secular and progressive state compared to most in the region. Women in Iraq have already lost many of the rights they had and they will lose them all if Iraq ends up being an Islamic state which is nearly inevitable.

The other problem you have in all this is Islamic law is somewhat brutal, its spelled out in the Koran. It is a part of their culture, maybe you don't like it but its not the place of the U.S. to tell everyone they have to live like Americans and Christians. If you want people to stop hating you, you have to start respecting cultures different from yours, and stop telling people how to live.

Another reason most of the world hates the U.S. is because you invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and rather than bringing "Freedom and Democracy" there it appears the U.S.

Its an execeptionally good riot control device since it leaves no physical evidence, especially if the antenna is somewhat concealed. No clouds of tear gas, no protesters eyes burning from mace, no batons swinging, no soldiers shooting rubber or lead bullets to stoke sympathy from TV viewers. The protester will just start screaming in pain and running away. Sure to be a big hit in Israel and Iraq.

I'm wondering if they are working on an indoor version since it is a perfect tool for torture, it leaves no marks. The victim wouldn't even know what was happening to them.

It appears I now have a good reason to wear a tin foil hat, or really a full body suit like everyone keeps telling me I should. Its not just a Bush Big Brother Weapon either. I believe it was started by Clinton and is roundly endorsed by John Kerry.

This weapon is perfect for a dictatorship wanting to keep its people in line.

Its the U.S. military's latest Active Denial System developed by Raytheon scheduled to start trials this fall. Its a millimeter wave beam weapon designed for non lethal crowd "control". Volunteers at Raytheon subjected to it described it as "unbearably painful, saying they felt as though their bodies were on fire". It should put an end to any unauthorized demonstrations against the U.S. or any of its allies. Its not entirely clear what happens to your eyes if you take the beam in the face at close range, or if it will cause cancer long term.

In case you think this is just Bush administration big brotherism, John Kerry is a big fan too.

Wake up and read the following!

The Patriot Act is hideously reminiscent of the "Decree for the Protection of Nation and State" that became law in Nazi Germany in February 1933. Its provisions were described by John Toland, in his masterly "Adolf Hitler", as ostensibly innocuous while in practice destroying every reasonable humanitarian right formerly possessed by the German people. There were "Tribunals set up to try enemies of the state", and Toland observed that Hitler made his legislation (the "Enabling Act") "sound moderate and promised to use its emergency powers "only in so far as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures"." Does that sound horribly familiar? And who would decide whether a measure was "vitally necessary"? " Why, the man wielding total power, of course. ("Trust me!" is ever the cry of the incipient dictator.) So Hitler"s Decree and the Reichstag"s subsequent Enabling Act were never modified or repealed, because they gave the man who was served by a compliant and intensely patriotic legislature the instruments he needed to keep him in total control. This is the reason for Bush"s energetic campaign to prevent the Patriot Act being subject to the existing "sunset clause" whereby most of its more despotic provisions should lapse next year. It was passed by a compliant and intensely patriotic legislature : will it be repealed by one?

Cloughley

There wasn't much in Bowling for Columbine that could be called fiction. It was mostly speculation that America's obsessions with war, guns and violence are intertwined and aren't particularly healthy. Fact is America is one of the world's most violent developed nations. There were some specific things in it he severely stretched to make his point, not like anyone on the right would ever do that... Coulter..cough..Limbaugh..cough.

When you get to subject matter of Fahrenheit 9/11 its pretty hard for anyone to be sure of what the truth is. Moore is presenting his take on it which may or may not be accurate. One of the problems is the Bush administration has been actively classifying and suppressing just about everything about the Saudi role in 9/11 and the Bush family's excessively close ties to the Saudi's and the Bin Laden family. If you recall they blacked out the entire section on Saudi Arabia's complicity in the congressional report on 9/11 and there were a lot of pages on it. They have also aggressively suppressed all information about the fact that they let airplanes spirit members of the Bin Laden family and other unidentified Saudi's out of the U.S. right after 9/11 at a time when no American could get off the ground.

It is a simple fact that the Bush family has long running ties to people in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait including the Bin Laden family and it colors their dealings in the area, in the opinion of some it clouds their judgment. George H.W. Bush had active business dealings with them when he was at Zapata Oil. He has an active relationship with them today in his role as spokesman for the Carlysle group which is one of Saudi Arabia's major defense contractors.

To be honest I don't know how anyone continues to defend the Bush family especially the current administration. All indications are that they were completely had by Iran, who through Ahmed Chalibi suckered them in to invading Iraq which is now doing massive damage to America's standing in the world, is making the world more dangerous and is costing the U.S. dearly in blood and money. THe Truth about Chalibi.

How do you keep supporting an administration dumb enough to be had by the Iranian's. What are you going to say when the Shia's take power in Iraq as soon as they get a fair election and Iraq turns into an Iranian influenced theocracy and all of America's sacrifice was for worse than nothing.

At LSU commencement Bush joked about being a "C" student. He is proof anyone can be President in America, even someone as intellectually challenged as he is, of course it helps to be from a wealthy and influential family so you can get elected on name only. Bush is great on rhetoric but he simply lacks the intellectual depth to make good decisions when it comes to the enormously complex areas like foreign affairs and economics. The fact that his administration was had by Iran is a case in point. It was his job to take Chalibi skepticially especially considering a long string of red flags about his ethics and motives, but he, Cheney, Perl and Wolfowitz fell for it hook, line and sinker and its costing the U.S. dearly.

Sorry to break it to you, but Kerry is missing a huge opportunity in not going directly for Bush. Why dawdle with Rumsfeld resignation calls when Bush impeachment is possible? I refer you to this article at Counterpunch.

Israel, unlike its arab dictator neighbors, allows for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, of religion, etc...


Yep, just ask Mr. Vanunu, eh?

...or the Mossad-educated "interrogators" assigned to Abu Ghraib and the JIDC in Baghdad during the June '03 to January '04 time-frame?

...or shall we discuss the past of your present Prime Minister's "indirect responsibility", or the attack by Israeli warplanes and motor-torpedo boats on the USS LIBERTY (GTR-5) a ship of an erstwhile ally, which found out about Israeli nuclear secrets in international waters and was attacked?

...or shall we discuss what should be even more painful facts to Israeli citizens, such as the use of Sarin and other nerve gasses against Palestinian citizens in what even Israelis term as "the Occupied Territories"?

Israel is a military-theocratic quasi-democracy with a LIMITED freedom of speech, religion and assembly, currently engaged in the military occupation of land that they seized and continue to illegally hold, thanks to their theocratic mythology and the terms of their pseudo-democracy, and supported by Zionists and Zionist Christians in the US, for their own reasons. Because of the support from the US propping up their economy and VERY favorable terms under the World Bank and IMF, they enjoy an almost European-level pseudo-capitalist oligarchy and are still quite Socialist in their benefits policies. I find it ironic that Israeli citizens have better health-care laws and rates, supported by my tax money, than my parents do.

Additionally, Israel is a country that violates the terms of EVERY no-proliferation treaty on the books today. The ONLY place there was WMD in the Middle East in Feb-Apr '03 was Israel...should I detail where they are? Iraq was "liberated" and put under an Israeli-style occupation by the US for Israeli, not US strategic interests, just as the original Desert Storm was fought for the same reasons. All the US is experieincing in Iraq today is a less-controlled, wider-range intifadah in a different country than The Occupied Territories.

we have a law which allows secret investigations and arrests, and prohibits the accused from telling anyone about what's being done to them

I've wondered, when someone receives a "National Security Letter" -- since it's illegal to reveal you've gotten one -- how does the recipient go about getting a lawyer?

"Law Offices."

"Uh, hi, I think I need a lawyer."

"What sort of legal services do you need sir?"

"Uh, I can't say."

"You can't say?"

"No, that's illegal, but I need a lawyer, to help me with this thing I can't talk about. You know, a secret lawyer for secret charges."

This is not the United States of America I learned about in school.

But then neither is sending Canadian Maher Arar to Syria to be tortured, or exposing an undercover CIA agent for petty personal revenge, or setting up secret U.S. prison camps for 10,000, or Military Intelligence encouraging torture in those prisons, or lying about the reasons for going to war.

Wake up -- this is the same administration that ignored warnings of 9/11. Why do we keep rewarding this secretive, authoritarian, and incompetent administration?

Robert Fisk (reporter for the independant in Baghdad thinks that the soldiers were instructed to do what they did.

Not stupid -extremely calculated:

"Someone decided that the photos would be the final straw, the breaking point, the moment of capitulation for these young men. Make them simulate oral sex. Make them look at the penis of their best friend. Get a girl to admire their attempted erection. This was truly Saddamite in its perversity. So let's, as the Americans say, get real. Who taught Lynndie and her boyfriend and the other American sadists of Abu Ghraib prison to do this?"

• Maintaining a base of operations in the Middle East is necessary to be able to exert influence over that region and neighboring lands (Europe, China, etc.). In the past, and still now, Israel is the country about which all of this pivots.
• Water. Israel is running out of it. Iraq has a lot of it. Jordan is already in negotiations with the US to build a water pipeline from Iraq to Israel. See this article for more details, or Google for appropriate terms

And please use the proper terminology. This isn't a part of the conservative playbook. Its part of the playbook of the neo-conservatives or, if you actually look at their policies and match it up to traditional political parties, the fascists.

And please use the proper terminology. This isn't a part of the conservative playbook. Its part of the playbook of the neo-conservatives or, if you actually look at their policies and match it up to traditional political parties, the fascists .

Here is an "Ask Slashdot" Question for a Saturday night. Who would you guess might lead America in to a new summer of love, whether they be musicians, poets, rebels or prophets. Who is the modern day Pete Seeger, Frank Zappa, Jim Morrison, Tom Hayden, George Carlin, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, CSN&Y or Bob Dylan.

Do you think this summer or next could be a new summer of love. America is entering an increasingly dark period much like it did in the 50's and 60's but maybe much worse, much darker this time around. Our government seems to be waging a war on drugs, a war on p2p, a war on imaginary WMD's, a war on privacy, a war on religion if its the wrong kind, a war on love, a war on freedom and democracy, war on everything. You have to figure they won't be able to build prison's fast enough to lock everyone up. Perhaps this is an indicator to that new career path we can all retrain for, one that can't be easily oursourced and seems to be a growth industry...prison gaurd. America now has the largest prison population per capita in the world, a title once held by the gulag's of the Soviet Union but now America reigns supreme.

A couple names that come to mind for the next Woodstock, a real Woodstock and not the decandent self indulgent festivals we've been doing lately:

- Michael Moore, OK sometimes he's a goof but he often hit the nail on the head no one else will hit.

- Rage Against the Machine

- Bruce Cockburn

- Peace Songs

Part of the problem is most of the musicians of today don't seem to really stand for anything and real talent seems to be increasingly rare. Musicians seem to mostly turn out formulas or beat, they sing about love but mostly as pop thats just rearranging the same empty words over and over again. There is plenty of hate and sex. Rap and hip hop don't really capture the same spirit, the peace loving rebellion of the sixties, the thoughtful message.

Of course maybe we can't capture that same magic again. For one thing the government has seen it happen once, and they've been to school on it so this time around they may smash it with an iron fist. Now they have computers to catalog us all and agencies with truly wicked tools to suppress dissent, and a willingness to keep building prisons. We are also such a lazy, spoiled culture, mesmerized by TV, alcohol, video games and the beloved buck. Could we really stand up against all the wrongness our government seems to be perpetrating everyday and at an accelerating pace. Could we all stand up sometime soon and tell those in charge enough is enough and turn the tide.

Stop killing people and doing things that make people want to kill us. Stop using bold faced lies to sucker us in to wars, stop promoting ruthless dictators, stop taxing working people in to poverty and giving all the money to the richest 1%, stop rewarding corporations for sending all our jobs to China. Stop trying to destroy all the people that are speaking the truth like Paul O'Neill, Richard Clark and Joe Wilson. Stop selling out our country and its government to the highest bidder. Stop the war on drugs and the war on p2p and locking up people who've never hurt anyone. Stop selling our elections and democracy to the highest bidder, the one who can mesmerize us with the most TV ads or engage in the dirtiest trick to steal an election and power. Stop taking tax money from working people and doling it out to corporations like you did in that sham Medicare prescription drug bill, the one you lied and cheated and bribed to pass. Stop congress from writing DMCA's and Patriot Acts that rob us of our rights, because they are working for corporations and not the people. Stop subjecting us to elections between Republican's and Democrat's where both choices are awful and undifferentiated so its pointle

if the intelligence that Bush got also said they existed, and Bush
repeated this, as he did.. is he really lying? Sure, but he didn't fabricate
the lie, he just went on the intelligent his spooks got wrong.

Bush is no great leader, but if US intelligence can't even get shit right,
how can he relay the 'truth'?

"US intelligence" didn't get it factually correct because under the careful supervision of The White House through Cheney and the Office of Special Plans among others, "US intellegence" was never meant to get it factually correct. They were tasked with massaging any available data to fit The White House's preconcieved view-point that Iraq was a serious threat to the security of the United States. At the level of The White House, any data which confilicted with that view-point was systematically changed, deemphasized, discarded, or sent back to the CIA to be reevaluated.

This was done in the same general manner as so-called Creation Science[sic] attempts to massage data to support their preconcieved viewpoint that the Earth is relatively young and was created by their god, or their preconcieved viewpoint that evolution is a lie. In the cases of how both The White House and Creation Science[sic] adherents selectively pick and discard data it is the outcome which matters, not the facts. The facts, being inconvienent to them, have nothing to do with it.

How on earth did this get moderated Interesting? It's just some infantile rant by some guy. Hey whiteSanjuro, I've got some news for you: Wisconsin is the most liberal state in the midwest. They routinely vote Democratic. In fact, Madison (the capital) was one of the few cities in the nation to denounce the Patriot Act. I'm not sure where you're thinking of moving to but Wisconsin -- all jokes aside -- is one of the more progressive states in the nation.

GMD

Maybe you might want to try actually getting your news from somewhere other than foxnews or CNN.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is often one of the more difficult psychological disorders to treat,

Difficult for whom to treat in what way?

PTSD is one of the easiest to treat in my experience (7 years as a clinical hypnotherapist). You know exactly what the problem is (recurring memories), and you know what the therapeutic outcome is (ability to remember whilst remaning calm). Where's the difficulty?

and is pretty much tops in the category of anxiety-related disorders.

tops??? Who modded this up?

It would be a wonderful thing if it actually is useful in treatment.

The drug companies have a near stranglehold over psychiatry. Without big money to fund the trials and marketing, it will never reach mass-usage.

That is not at all surprising, given their history. They have done PR for some of the most abject dictators in the world, worked for tobacco companies, etc...

They are professional liers, having helped spin Enron, Iraq, and many, many more.

The fact they helped defeat outsourcing while making extensive use of it themselves barely registers on the radar of hypocrisy.

Agree with your post in general, but one factor that hasn't been mentioned so far (which surprises me) but is alluded to in your post is the military aspect of all this.

The place to cut is in military spending. The war in Iraq would have paid for a lot of space travel, unfortunately it paid for blowing up buildings instead. We have lots of highly specialized weapons that are very expensive - millions of dollars per explosion. Military aircraft are not built using standard parts. Everything is custom. So everything is brutally expensive. Cut back on the custom nature of this hardware, and you'd save a lot of money. Cut back on unilateral foreign wars, and you'd save even more.

However there are those that argue that the whole space program is entirely about the military and I find this argument persuasive from several angles. Control of space is currently up for grabs. The International Space Station has been an interesting experiment, but for practical control of space a moon-base would probably be more practical. The control of space has always been an issue and has recently become a policy goal of the USA.

The presence of a large slush-fund for "space exploration" provides a huge amount of money for the companies in the Military Industrial Complex who are able to apply technologies developed for that ostensible purpose back to military and commercial projects.

So, guess where the money is going? To the kids that lack textbooks, healthcare and lobbyists or to the slick, plausible, verbose representatives of millions of dollars in campaign funds?

• UK policy on Chilean refugees FCO 7/2421, FCO 7/2421/1, FCO 7/2422, FCO 7/2422/1
  
• Internal political situation in Chile FCO 7/2410, FCO 7/2410/1
  
• Export of military equipment from the UK to Chile FCO 7/2433
  

>>1) USA gave weapons to Saddam.

>Thats interesting, especially considering his tanks, missiles, and aircraft were all soviet made, and his chemical weapons were either German or Japanese. If we did give him weapons, it wasn't very many I guess.

Well, see... your link is dated 1984... Here are three that are more current:

Helping iraq kill with chemical weapons
Chemical weapons - the US and iraq
US-iraq weapons sales: the dossier (Google cache)

Choice quote from the 1st link: "on July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide -- some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons -- and had shipped it via a CIA contractor"

And these are just the TIP of the iceberg.

The US voted for 5 resolutions in the 80's that condemned Iraq for its chemical weapon use.

Good for the US! Unfortunately, see the two links above. By the way, as long as we're talking about condemnations, the US has been condemned by the UN in the past.

Iraq is a big place. I mean, it took us 6 months to find is air force buried in the sand- how long will it take us to find a few drums of chemicals? They could be anywhere.

You mean to tell me that you consider a pile of completely unuseable, verging-on-scrap planes buried in SAND to be a viable fighting force? I mean PUH-lease... it would take weeks or months to make any of them even close to workable.

Actually, my mistake... it seems that there actually was a viable fighting force buried in the desert. Oh wait... that was satire.

It doesn't make any sense to only lie halfway like that. I think the fact that we haven't found any weapons yet is proof that the Bush administration wasn't lying about the WMD's.

OK, now that paragraph is an excellent display of gullibility.

I think that you are simply afraid to believe that you have been lied to. I think you're afraid of the implications.

>>1) USA gave weapons to Saddam.

>Thats interesting, especially considering his tanks, missiles, and aircraft were all soviet made, and his chemical weapons were either German or Japanese. If we did give him weapons, it wasn't very many I guess.

Well, see... your link is dated 1984... Here are three that are more current:

Helping iraq kill with chemical weapons
Chemical weapons - the US and iraq
US-iraq weapons sales: the dossier (Google cache)

Choice quote from the 1st link: "on July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide -- some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons -- and had shipped it via a CIA contractor"

And these are just the TIP of the iceberg.

The US voted for 5 resolutions in the 80's that condemned Iraq for its chemical weapon use.

Good for the US! Unfortunately, see the two links above. By the way, as long as we're talking about condemnations, the US has been condemned by the UN in the past.

Iraq is a big place. I mean, it took us 6 months to find is air force buried in the sand- how long will it take us to find a few drums of chemicals? They could be anywhere.

You mean to tell me that you consider a pile of completely unuseable, verging-on-scrap planes buried in SAND to be a viable fighting force? I mean PUH-lease... it would take weeks or months to make any of them even close to workable.

Actually, my mistake... it seems that there actually was a viable fighting force buried in the desert. Oh wait... that was satire.

It doesn't make any sense to only lie halfway like that. I think the fact that we haven't found any weapons yet is proof that the Bush administration wasn't lying about the WMD's.

OK, now that paragraph is an excellent display of gullibility.

I think that you are simply afraid to believe that you have been lied to. I think you're afraid of the implications.

In legend Murdoch has an infallible popular touch, displayed in escalating circulations. But the legend misleads somewhat: Murdoch is not commercially invincible in areas where governments can't help. The plinth of his British empire, the rigorously prurient News of the World, was selling more than six million copies when he bought it: since, half its sales have vanished, while other papers have gained. The New York Post consistently loses money, and most companies would close it. -- "I Am Thy Father's Ghost": A Journey into Rupert Murdoch's Soul

Why does Bush get the trophy? He can't seem to find any WMD's he isn't building himself or planning to launch.

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
- Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
- George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
- Colin Powell February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
- George Bush February 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
- Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
- Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.
- Tony Blair 28 April, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
- George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
- Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
- Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
- George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
- Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
- Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

Link to source

Which makes the hypocrisy more galling...

At the end of the article was some interesting information:
The research is sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Perhaps this will help DARPA regain some of its cachet after the embarassingly stupid gaffe by Terror Bookie John Poindexter. Got to take the bad with the good, I guess... it's nice to be reminded that the Internet isn't all DARPA ever helped get off the ground.

Assuming the Republican's retain control of power next year its a near certainty they are going to make a first attempt at privitizing Social Security. The case for this was very strong during the bubble, they just had to point to how much money people were making in the stock market versus the miniscule return on the money in social security.

This movement suffered a major setback when the bubble burst and large numbers of small investors had their retirements wiped out and ended up working at Walmart. Of course they could have stayed the course, assuming they hadn't put all their money in complete turkeys Wall Street told them were sure things, and would have come out OK but a lot of people saw their life savings disappearing at an alarming rate and managed to get out just in time for the bottom of the market.

So Wall Street and the Republicans are pretty keen on the current bull run to continue, and are doing everything they can to fuel it, as in extremely low interest rates to fuel margin buys and cutting taxes on dividends, so they can resume the plan to move Social Security money that is mostly going towards covering the deficit in to the stock market. The influx of this new money should further fuel a boom market that will rival the last bubble. Unfortunately there is a pretty good chance it will be followed by another huge correction, another one those in the know will correctly time, and get out on top, while the most basic retirement security of a lot of average people will be wiped out again.

From the article above:

"The financial sector is looking at these funds like a shark that sees nice juicy prey swimming in the water. They would love to get their hands on Social Security and Medicare funds to manage, at a 2% fee. Even just 1% this would amount to tens of billions of dollars annually, not including the speculative gains that could be made on the turbulent market run-up."

I wouldn't mind that as long as the execs of the UK companies/politicians who built Falluja 2 and US companies/politicians who supplied Iraq with chemical/biological weapons are dealth with as well.

• Absense of deep or sophisticated thinking (If anyone has any information about George W. Bush showing evidence of sophisticated thinking, please write to me.)
• Polarized thinking (Bush's "you are either with us or against us" is an example. Another example is his statement, "Look my job isn't to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important... this is evil versus good.")
• Rigid thinking
• Lying (A June 18, 2002 article in Salon says, Losing the "trifecta" says, "It takes a brazen politician to make up a story that can be proven false and then to keep lying about it after being busted repeatedly." Also see the October 8, 2002 CounterPunch article, Bush's Leaps of Illogic Don't Answer People's Questions About War.
• Anger ("... why is Bush so eager to engage in violence and so incapable of explaining why?" See the Sept. 24, 2002 American Politics Journal article and Addiction, Brain Damage and the President -- "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush )
• Obsessive repetition (On August 7, during his "working vacation" at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, Bush used the word "home" six times in a minute of conversation with reporters: "It's nice to be home ... This is my home ... It's good to be home ... This is where you come home ... This is my home," etc. In a five-minute speech later in the month, Bush mentioned values at least seven times and "neighbor" or "neighborliness" or "neighborly" six times. In a twenty-minute speech the next day he used "character" eleven times. -- Some of the examples here are drawn from a September 6, 2001 article in The Atlantic magazine, The Bumbling Communicator. Not only was Bush repetitive, he was lying. The article says, "Bush lived in the Texas governor's mansion and vacationed in swank resorts and at Kennebunkport before the campaign began.")
• Inability to perceive the needs of others, inability to understand someone different from oneself
• Grandiosity, believing that one's own ideas are all-important. (Bush, and the oil and weapons people who support him, say the U.S. has the right to take military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack.)
• Impatience ("If we wait for threats to fully materialize," President Bush said in a speech he gave at West Point, "we will have waited too long.")
• Incoherence. Things don't make sense in the mind of an alcoholic. An alcoholic's pattern of speech sometimes reflects his or her inner chaos.

• Absense of deep or sophisticated thinking (If anyone has any information about George W. Bush showing evidence of sophisticated thinking, please write to me.)
• Polarized thinking (Bush's "you are either with us or against us" is an example. Another example is his statement, "Look my job isn't to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important... this is evil versus good.")
• Rigid thinking
• Lying (A June 18, 2002 article in Salon says, Losing the "trifecta" says, "It takes a brazen politician to make up a story that can be proven false and then to keep lying about it after being busted repeatedly." Also see the October 8, 2002 CounterPunch article, Bush's Leaps of Illogic Don't Answer People's Questions About War.
• Anger ("... why is Bush so eager to engage in violence and so incapable of explaining why?" See the Sept. 24, 2002 American Politics Journal article and Addiction, Brain Damage and the President -- "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush )
• Obsessive repetition (On August 7, during his "working vacation" at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, Bush used the word "home" six times in a minute of conversation with reporters: "It's nice to be home ... This is my home ... It's good to be home ... This is where you come home ... This is my home," etc. In a five-minute speech later in the month, Bush mentioned values at least seven times and "neighbor" or "neighborliness" or "neighborly" six times. In a twenty-minute speech the next day he used "character" eleven times. -- Some of the examples here are drawn from a September 6, 2001 article in The Atlantic magazine, The Bumbling Communicator. Not only was Bush repetitive, he was lying. The article says, "Bush lived in the Texas governor's mansion and vacationed in swank resorts and at Kennebunkport before the campaign began.")
• Inability to perceive the needs of others, inability to understand someone different from oneself
• Grandiosity, believing that one's own ideas are all-important. (Bush, and the oil and weapons people who support him, say the U.S. has the right to take military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack.)
• Impatience ("If we wait for threats to fully materialize," President Bush said in a speech he gave at West Point, "we will have waited too long.")
• Incoherence. Things don't make sense in the mind of an alcoholic. An alcoholic's pattern of speech sometimes reflects his or her inner chaos.