Slashdot Mirror

Do a Google - there's tons of references.

Here's one from the Memory Hole site.

Another one I heard about relates to the famous COndi Rice remark that "nobody ever thought about it" - which was a bare-faced lie. I read that the New York Transit Authority has helicopters on line to protect the WTC - and that these choppers do regular drills - and have for the last twenty years - except on one day: you guessed it.

I agree with you that a lot of these sites are conspiracy nuts - but a lot of this stuff seems to be too well documented to be dismissed as coincidence - as the Associated Press article tries to do.

I haven't bothered to go read all the primary source documents on this stuff - I'm satisfied that much of it does exist and that it isn't all made up by conspiracy nuts.

Especially given the facts about the "Northwoods Documents" (the 1960's plan by the Joint Chiefs to fake terrorist incidents as an excuse to invade Cuba - some of them VERY elaborate - including the faked shooting down of an airliner) - the book about them just came out. Google for that stuff - ABC News had an article about it some time ago, and there's likely newer material since the book came out.

I never thought I'd be agreeing with Bill Gates on anything.

our Education system was designed for children at the begining of the industrial age. assembly line schools for assembly line jobs. individual creativity was not to be encouraged, as these chidren were being trained to endure the mundane life of a factory worker.

it also had a neat side effect: the students weren't very educated. the designer of the system actually touted this as one of the good points.

it's a sad commentary on our education system when I can state with no hesitation that Bill Gates is not only right, but could design a better one.

Thus, a "torturous" math test is significantly less laden with horror than "torture" at Abu Ghraib (under US management), which is in turn much less nasty than "torture" at Abu Ghraib (under Saddam's management).

Good point about the meaning of the word being flexible, but your example is very poor.

Have you even seen the photos and descriptions of what was done at Abu Ghraib by US soldiers and independent contractors? I don't see how it can get any nastier than:

- being beaten and/or humiliated on a daily basis
- being led around naked and filthy in the cold for days at a time
- being hooded with a noose around your neck standing on a chair for hours (days?) at a time
- being literally crushed to death for the amusement of the guards
- being tortured to death in other ways
- being raped by the guards (males and females)
- being purposefully set upon and allowed to be bitten by attack dogs, again for the amusement of the guards
- etc
- etc
- ad infinitum

Please don't ever again try to say that what the Americans have done (and probably continue to do without taking photographs) at Abu Ghraib is somehow not as bad as whatever came before under Saddam's administration. Numbers do not matter. One person is 110% too many. The United States military and everyone who worked at that prison has disgraced and endangered the entire nation by stooping to such amazingly abominable behavior which is no different than what happened under Saddam. No different.

There are rules about the treatment of prisoners of war for practical as well as moral reasons. If the enemy knows he's just going to be tortured (possibly tortured to death), how willing is he going to be to give up and surrender, rather than fight to the death on the field of battle? Every American citizen and soldier in the world has been put in greater danger because of the behaviors witnessed at Abu Ghraib. Now all of our enemies will be motivated to keep fighting, and always fight to the death, because it's better than the alternative of getting captured by the Americans.

I am an American and everything that I have described is documented fact, so I have every right to say what I've said, and if this gets marked as a troll I'm going to be pissed. Reality sucks sometimes but it's still reality.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

Funny, you would think that since less and less work goes into FOIA requests, simple if you only have to write letters to deny access, there would be plenty of time to do thorough searches for the few that are still granted. But then again FBI digital document projects arent inspirational unless you are a contracter ofcourse.

For those who want to know what kind of requests this is about, lists of FOIA request are subject the the freedom of information act and are avaiable here. Its funny to see the "all little green men info" requests right next to legitimate historical research inquaries. (or should that be other historical research ;-) )

To stay up to date on what data is kept secret there is always secrecy news run by the federation of american scientist. You can join their fight to open up overall budget totals of the inteligence agencies.... during the cold war! Its always the paranoid lunies that want an open goverment. Its like these people think they know better what they are talking about then the politicians...

There is good news as well, cryptome.org demonstrates that classification policy is often that, policy(weekly DHS memo`s) ;-) And this will only get better when more and more information gets digital.

Anyway, this is an ongoing battle and since shrub and gang are past half time, have pissed of everyone who has to keep these secrets, demonstrated just how powerfull a political tool classification policy is and the 911 rapport was pro-openness things can only get better from here right?

AAAG!

the first Bush did the SAME THING. After Gulf War I, he left the Kurds to revolt alone and die. Clinton simply continued the actions of his predecessor, Bush Sr. and the no-fly zones! Why are you blaming that policy on clinton and democrats? it makes no sence.

I cannot speak for all democrats, but I don't believe it was all about the oil. I just want a straight answer as to why we are at war. no wmd's, no al-quida link, no threat to us.

and again, if you look back in recent history, there have been much more brutal regimes involving many many more deaths over the same time periods. Why Iraq? Why this?

its all so fucking tragic.

for an interesting read, please check out Bush's father's reasoning behind not invading Iraq during Gulf War I. Very intelligent, Bush Sr. was many times greater a statesman than the joke we have in office today:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

~PopCulture

Users cannot send images

UFO's are holograms. Military has had the sky projection technology for years. Lockheed Martin developed it in the 70's - projecting from either ground based mobile units or C-130 type aircraft. Over America they use the images of UFO's - over third world countries they use religious icons over towns to impose fear...

Don't take my word for it. Scroll down to the "K-Holograms..." section to get an idea of how the military thinks and operates.

...Want to welcome our New(ly re-elected) Nazi overlord der fuher g.w. bush.
"We have taken new measures to protect our homeland, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the almighty creator." - Adolf Hitler
"God told me to strike at Al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Sadam, which I did" -G.W.
see the movie version.

Remember, comparing bush to hitler is 100% valid, because it was a coup that led to hitlers rise to chancelor, just as it was a 'legal' coup that led to gw's 'election' in 2000. and although g.w. may not be a mass murderer, his determination, his fevorous religious belief that what he's doing is right, is simply too simmilar to be ignored.

Any people going on about Clinton, you have to wonder what Bush has given the chinese. Especially when his brother made so much money on a contract he had no experience in.

For cryin out loud, must we turn every post into a political weenie roast? Ignoring the fact that certain other nations have their own political cloak and daggery, it would seem he could cooperate pretty well with other nations.

I mean, feel free to explain it away, but I seriously doubt the situation is even as remotely dire as you portray it when it comes to the current administration. Hell, I'm even one to say they haven't done done a stellar job on the deficit, but I'm thinking it's a tad over the top to say he'll neglect the country. Hell, for neglecting the country, he put a post 9/11 economy back onto it's feet and into something that's currently thriving. How much so, you can debate with yourself all day long, but the trend is definitely in the positive. I won't entirely agree with his fiscal policy, but it's not something you point to and yell "NEGLECT!!" all day long.

I see positives for the space program all the way around on his re-election. 2nd term Presidents have nothing to loose and if one thing has been made obvious and for better or worse, he's not afraid to spend money. Another thing you can count on from his past performance is that he'll stay commited to the project long term. And that's the most you can ask for in a Space program, right there-- The will to spend the money, do the work and resolve to stay the course.

You're right that the bill was not serious. On the other hand, how do you explain this

American policy should, and is, made in order to benefit Americans firstly, and others as a secondary benefit. If we can manage to benefit the Iraqi people (by replacing a violent dictator with a mostly democratic republic) while defending our interests, all the better, but there is a definite ordering of the priorities.

What do you think is going on in Iraq right now? What do you think people are rebelling for - fun? They're rebelling for stuff like this: [Cite]

To quote directly from the article:

About 20m ahead of me, I could see the American Bradley armoured vehicle, a huge monster with fire rising from within. It stood alone, its doors open, burning. I stopped, took a couple of photos and crossed the street towards a bunch of people.

So, in other words, the American soldiers were responding to an attack and defending themselves.

If you believe the polls in Iraq, the majority of Iraqis (even when you include the pro-US Kurds) want the US to just leave.

And as I previously stated, their opinion is not being taken into account, nor should it.

Secondly, you attribute the violence to people who want an islamic theocracy. Pray tell, where did you come across this insight into the motives of diverse resistance groups across Iraq?

I don't attribute all of the violence to groups who want an Ismamic theocracy; there are still some of the old Baathists around too.

... random "No Blood for Oil" rantings, operating under the false assumption that we are over there merely to steal a few barrels of crude ...

Their "government" was millions of people. One of Bremer's admitted biggest mistakes was kicking all baathists out of public office (which he later rescinded), because even under Saddam, the government was still just people doing their jobs, apart from a relatively small number with blood on their hands.

The Baathists were "Just doing their jobs": what a wonderful excuse. Do you also apply this low standard to Private Lynndie England and her friends? Or only to non-Americans?

> their hospitals were even more shortly
> supplied, and their doctors lacked the freedom
> to leave the country.

Wrong.
[Cite]

To quote the second article you mentioned:

"I am afraid to ride to work in my car," she said, because of recent robberies, rapes, kidnappings and murders.

And then your last paragraph:

Oh, they certainly seem to be showing will. Power? That's arguable. They're certainly militarily weaker than the US, but they've been doing quite impressively nonetheless via the force multiplier of guerella warfare. And despite all of the innocents caught in the crossfire, polls show that those who are resisting have more popular support than us, the occupiers.

So these are your freedom fighters in Iraq? Do you want these people running the show over there? When your freedom fighters bomb a civilian location, that is merely acceptable "innocents caught in the crossfire", but when an American military vehicle is torched, and some civilians who where stupid enough to run towards the explosion instead of away get killed in retaliatory fire, that isn't?

Bush is so consistant that he is seen as inflexible by his detractors.

No, he's not consistent. While talking about how important it is to get rid of dictators for the security of America, he's supporting some of the worst dictators on the planet, for example Islam Karimov [...] received a thank you letter from US President George Bush", and Bush received him in the oval office.

This story is very similar to when Reagan sent Rumsfeld to Bagdad to assist Saddam Hussein in 1983/84.

If the US had let the UN do its job, the war in Iraq would never have been necessary. The inspectors were already back in, the inspections were already working and Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, nor was he any threat to his neighbors. I agree that the credible threat of military force was necessary to bring down Saddam, but there should not have been any need to actually use it.

agree on a resolution that would result in "serious consequences" if broken

What, you still think 1441 was reason enough to go to war? Get outta here! You been living under a rock the last year? Even Dubya gave up on that one and started harping on about how 678 was still in effect (which it wasn't, the cease-fire after Gulf War I killed it) before he gave up on that angle altogether and started with his "better off without Saddam" line which he's currently using. Read 678, especially the "all necessary means" bit. That bit is missing from 1441 which means it does NOT automatically authorize the use of force to implement it. Another resolution was required and Negroponte et al tried really hard to bribe and coerce one into being, but most of the security council resisted so they went it alone instead. And that's why Kofi Annan called the invasion illegal, because formally it was an unlawful act of aggression against a sovereign state.

Before Bush came around, the combined moral and political might of the U.N. couldn't even keep inspectors in

The UN kept inspectors in Iraq for several years before Bush was appointed president. Richard Butler withdrew them once, but Clinton got them back in, presumably between blowjobs. And he didn't need no invasion to do it either.

Saddam was trying to weasel his way out of sanctions so he could start up his nuclear program again.

Yep. But he wasn't succeeding. Let me quote Secretary of State Colin Powell in a statement he made in 2001:

We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place

You're not calling Colin Powell a liar, are you?

I am talking about 2002-2003. Regarding the earlier inspections, read Scott Ritter's book. The reason the Iraqi's had problems with allowing inspection teams into presidential palaces and the like was because we had placed CIA agents on the inspection teams and Saddam was paranoid the inspectors were gathering intelligence to have him assassinated. He was at least half-right: we were gathering intelligence, but I don't know that we would have assassinated him. There was no point. He was contained, as Powell himself said.

The President's new mode of transportation: a black hole between Florida and DC...

My mistake. I misread the location of the school.

He was available to make the necessary decisions.

No, he wasn't. He was listening to a reading by elementary school children.

The FAA has plans in place of what they will do in case of a hijacking, and they have the experts to carry out those plans. They don't need the President to tell them how to control air traffic.

You're taking off-the-cuff examples that I gave and trying to pick them apart. You know as well as I do that Bush could have, and should have, been gathering information and making command decisions rather than remaining at a reading session with elementary school children.

When the President was informed of the second plane hitting, he sat there knowing that these agencies and plans were in full swing, and there was little he could do at that point. He told the 9/11 Commission that he decided that it would be best for him to project calm and allow these people to do their jobs and collect the information that he would need later. I don't know if that was the best solution, but it certainly wasn't a wrong one.

It was very clearly a wrong decision. That's why so many people are horrified at seeing the video of it. Please. Watch that. Do the children look frightened and in need of a calming influence? Hell no. They have no idea of what even happened. Besides, why did calming 30 school children take precedence over calming a frightened nation?

Bush sat there for five minutes while children read aloud. Then he got up and meandered around for another half a minute or so after that. Why did he decide that 'projecting calm' to a room full of perfectly calm elementary school children was more important than gathering information, making decisions, and making the tough calls when presented with conflicting reports from senior staff, the media, and government agencies? Stop being an apologist for someone who is so clearly in over his head.

You're believing Michael Moore about this, aren't you? This is one of his many lies. Witnesses on the spot have a different story.

Spread your disinformation elsewhere. Here's a video that shows every instant from the moment Anderew Card whispered in Bush's ear until Bush got out of his chair.

From my perspective, part of the problem that the American electorate finds itself in currently is that most journalists are pressed by time and deadlines - in addition to being lazy, intellectually dishonest, and unoriginal. Lies are repeated ad nauseum until they attain the polish of fact; lies, evasions or misrepresentations aren't confronted.

Bloggers aren't much better in this regard. Indeed, some myths or misunderstandings ("Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet") circulate longer on the Web than they do in mainstream media.

I think that blogs are useful for keeping attention on things: the costs of the war in Iraq, the veracity of the TANG memos. But they should not be mistaken for serious investigative journalism. Bloggers have even lower standards than journalists, if that's possible, and will rapidly jump to conclusions that a halfway decent journalist never would. (Almost every point raised by the conspiracy theorists over the TANG documents was quickly discredited. That is not to say that the combination of oddities and anachronisms in the memos wasn't worthy of attention, just that the bloggers were focussed on entirely the wrong things - such as trying to to determine kerning in a document that was a PDF of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy).

Sites that specialise in getting hold of original source material, such as thememoryhole.org - are often worthwhile. Writers with an actual understanding of the situation on the ground, or academic qualifications, such as juancole.com, are also good. Otherwise, it is mostly rampant speculation and spin.

Also thememoryhole.org.

...comparing him to Hitler...

This is one of those myths that has been busted time and time again, but thick-headed conservatives nonetheless spew the lies and thus perpetuate them.

To make the myth more concrete, conservatives believe MoveOn.org, a 527 group clearly connected in some way with the Democratic party (yes, this is itself wrong, but talk to your Congressman about Campaign Finance Reform if you want something to be done about it) ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Here's what really happened--here's the background the soundbite-obsessed Fox News anchors can't dig into because they aren't real journalists.

MoveOn.org ran a content called Bush in 30 Seconds. It was a content that allows ANYONE to submit an ad to MoveOn.org, and the ads would be showcased on the website while voting took place. The ad with the most votes would be aired by MoveOn.org.

Two of the OVER 1,500 ads compared Bush to Hitler. You can see these two ads here and here.

Now, in case we are forgetting, let me remind you of the correct interpretation of the first amendment--in order for there to be freedom of speech, there has to be freedom of speech even for ideas you don't like . Sure, most people absolutely hate even the mention of Hitler, but by censoring those people who use his image or make comparisons to him, we violate the first amendment right in all cases. There are some legal exceptions (the famous "fighting words" case among others).

That said, I am just reminding you that even these two amateur filmmakers did nothing wrong within the law, which sometimes isn't clear to people who don't truly respect constitutional rights.

The bottom line, however, is that MoveOn.org never aired these ads because people never voted them to the top. So, although you can fault these two amateur filmmakers for this film, you can't fault the democratic party, "democrats" at large, or even MoveOn.org. It would be like faulting Salon.com (or "the liberal media") if on one of their Forums I posted a message that said Bush reminds me of Hitler.

Plus, I find this somewhat ridiculous because one could easily turn this around. Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992. I am positive that most moral theorists and philosophers would find serious problems with that equivalence claim, regardless of their standpoint on abortion. Contrast this to the two ads posted on MoveOn.org, and you find one very important distinction. The ads on MoveOn.org focus on Hitler's power in using propaganda, his military force abroad and his rhetoric saying that he is driven by God. These particular aspects of Hitler's character could be argued to be found in George W. Bush. However, the comparison is unfair because it seeks emotional manipulation and deception, in that whenever someone thinks of Hitler, one thinks immediately of the holocaust and pure evil (thus, the mental connection, whatever the intention, becomes "Bush is this evil murderous leader"). But you have to admit that Limbaugh's comparison is much worse, because he effectively says that feminists are evil, murderous people, conducting their own holocaust. A clear distinction.

But, I won't fault him for that. After all, he is just one person, one viewpoint. It's his right of speech. And that means I can't say, "because Rush Limbaugh said it, it is mainstream conservati

...comparing him to Hitler...

This is one of those myths that has been busted time and time again, but thick-headed conservatives nonetheless spew the lies and thus perpetuate them.

To make the myth more concrete, conservatives believe MoveOn.org, a 527 group clearly connected in some way with the Democratic party (yes, this is itself wrong, but talk to your Congressman about Campaign Finance Reform if you want something to be done about it) ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Here's what really happened--here's the background the soundbite-obsessed Fox News anchors can't dig into because they aren't real journalists.

MoveOn.org ran a content called Bush in 30 Seconds. It was a content that allows ANYONE to submit an ad to MoveOn.org, and the ads would be showcased on the website while voting took place. The ad with the most votes would be aired by MoveOn.org.

Two of the OVER 1,500 ads compared Bush to Hitler. You can see these two ads here and here.

Now, in case we are forgetting, let me remind you of the correct interpretation of the first amendment--in order for there to be freedom of speech, there has to be freedom of speech even for ideas you don't like . Sure, most people absolutely hate even the mention of Hitler, but by censoring those people who use his image or make comparisons to him, we violate the first amendment right in all cases. There are some legal exceptions (the famous "fighting words" case among others).

That said, I am just reminding you that even these two amateur filmmakers did nothing wrong within the law, which sometimes isn't clear to people who don't truly respect constitutional rights.

The bottom line, however, is that MoveOn.org never aired these ads because people never voted them to the top. So, although you can fault these two amateur filmmakers for this film, you can't fault the democratic party, "democrats" at large, or even MoveOn.org. It would be like faulting Salon.com (or "the liberal media") if on one of their Forums I posted a message that said Bush reminds me of Hitler.

Plus, I find this somewhat ridiculous because one could easily turn this around. Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992. I am positive that most moral theorists and philosophers would find serious problems with that equivalence claim, regardless of their standpoint on abortion. Contrast this to the two ads posted on MoveOn.org, and you find one very important distinction. The ads on MoveOn.org focus on Hitler's power in using propaganda, his military force abroad and his rhetoric saying that he is driven by God. These particular aspects of Hitler's character could be argued to be found in George W. Bush. However, the comparison is unfair because it seeks emotional manipulation and deception, in that whenever someone thinks of Hitler, one thinks immediately of the holocaust and pure evil (thus, the mental connection, whatever the intention, becomes "Bush is this evil murderous leader"). But you have to admit that Limbaugh's comparison is much worse, because he effectively says that feminists are evil, murderous people, conducting their own holocaust. A clear distinction.

But, I won't fault him for that. After all, he is just one person, one viewpoint. It's his right of speech. And that means I can't say, "because Rush Limbaugh said it, it is mainstream conservati

Let's change the wording a bit shall we: ... Do as I say, not as I do.


right, but changing the words as you have done changes the whole point. It's not the powerful government that is doing the tracking, it's powerless individuals who are tracking agents of the government to ensure that they don't abuse the power they ALREADY have, by virtue of their government affiliation. Shoe's on the other foot, isn't it? It is entirely appropriate for individuals to engage in behavior that the government is prohibited from pursuing, because of the differential in the balance of power.

Last I checked, I don't need a permit to follow you around my candy store and keep an eye on you. Especially if I've already caught you with one hand in the cookie jar.

now, s/candy store/country and s/cookie jar/treasury and there we have the current situation. Are you saying it's not legal to watch people as they go about in public? This society seems to spend an awful lot of time watching people for the sole reason that they are unusually attractive or wealthy. Do you think it should be illegal for this cult of celebrity to continue chasing movie stars around just to take "candid" pictures? If this kind of celebrity worship is legal, why isn't it legal to make available information about other, less famous people?

If you think tracking people who haven't been convicted of any crimes should be illegal, I think John Ashcroft would choose to differ with you. I'm sure that retired Admiral John Poindexter would disagree, were he to be given the opportunity. try my first paragraph again, and this time s/cookie jar/koran and I'm pretty sure that you have criteria that the justice department would suggest is probable cause to keep an eye (and maybe a wiretap) on you. Do you think that the FBI isn't spying on American Citizens right now, making a list and checking it twice, without telling anyone who is on that list?

Think again, my friend, think again. At least Indymedia has published the list of delegates, and the delegates themselves can look to see if they are listed on it. You would think these delegates would be PROUD of their chosen roles in the democratic process, and be willing to submit themselves to stand up and be counted, rather than so ashamed of the policies they represent that they have to call in the FBI to make some bogus claims to protect them from the public eye.

This must be why John Kerry has taken the Swift Boat Vets for Truth to court for libel ... NOT ... instead John Kerry is threatening third-party TV Stations & bookstores instead. I guess the real threat to freedom is Kerry not some scarry "Patriot Act" that has harmed zero US Citizens and zero US Permanent Residents that you or anyone else can name

I'm confused about the Kerry in Cambodia thing ... I guess the SwiftVets were telling the turth about Kerry never being in Cambodia @ Christmas ... again you would think Kerry would be taking somebody to court for libel ... am I missing something???

Kerry lied to the US Senate ... Kerry lied to the People of Massachussettes ... Kerry lied to the American People and Kerry may have lied to both of his wives & associated children

"The real issue here is the speed and low cost of astroturf attack campaigns via the net,"

There would appear to be several issues per both the original /. article and the Belmont Club blog article ... perhaps the most interesting story is the power of the internet to overcome an entrenched thought police, group think, what have you ... Mainstream Media vs Kid Internet .

Convenient how you have forgotten about MoveOn and their infamous Hitler ad??? link #1 link #2

(GRIN) Please do not forget to throw George Soros' millions to MoveOn & Co. down the memory hole (/GRIN) while you focus only on the two $100K contributions by a Texas building contractor to the SwiftVets, will you rememember to mention the over 30,000 additional contributions of ~$64 (average) to the SwiftVets for a total of $2 million???

Or more recently Krar and Bruey.

Hate speech laws are stupid, plain and simple. Anything that's unpopular to the majority or damaging to those in power can be interpreted as hate speech just as easily as speech directed towards minorities. "Hate Speech" does nothing. It's when people act on what they say that is a problem. Does this mean we have to listen to the KKK rant? Yes. But it also means we have to listen to the Nation of Islam, MoveOn.org, ANSWER (My favorite quote: "It's GOOD to hate Bush!"), watch our flag torn and burned, and deal with gay pride parades. Personally I don't really care about any of these things even though I disagree with all of them (I lie, I severely dislike flag burners, but won't move to stop them...) and the idea of passing a law abridging their right to do what they do is not only positively ludicrous it's also COMPLETELY incompatible with the first amendment. The grandparent poster was right, free speech can't just be applied to those who we agree with; it has to be applied to everyone.

• More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000
  
• By 2003, [corporate taxes] had fallen to just 7.4% of overall federal receipts
  
• most corporations that actually do owe taxes pay a rate less than 5%
  
• 94% of US-controlled companies and 89% of foreign-controlled companies paid zero to 4% in taxes
  

We have bigger problems than dependency on foreign oil. If US oil companies would end their criminal behavior, we probably wouldn't need _any_ foreign oil. (of course efficiency is always a benefit)

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/gas-prices.htm

Its nice to see that the ACLU has decided to protect my 5 year olds right to surf the net and enjoy the pron pop ups the these unethical perverts want to send.

It's nice to see that you prefer to let Witch-finder General Ashcroft into my computer and my bedroom rather than take responsibility to raise your own child.

Are you such a bad parent that you think a nanny-State can do a better job?

Your five year-old daughter might well be shocked by seeing porn on your computer; but I wager she'd be wakened by screaming nightmares for a month if she saw these pictures of the results of the Nazi Holocaust. (Note that two of the pictures, including the one of the emaciated children your daughter's age who were subjected to medical "experiments", are served up by a Florida public school system.)

Should we remove those pictures from the Internet to protect your daughter? Turn the Holocaust survivors' "never again" into "never again seen"?

What about pictures of Pol Pot's Killing Fields?

Will throwing those pictures down the memory hole make your job as parent any easier?

What about sanitizing inconvenient pictures of America's Iraq War?

Is you daughter too young for those pictures of her country's "accomplishments"? Shall we censor them too?

Or maybe it's a better idea you sit with your five-year old while she browses the internet?

Its nice to see that the ACLU has decided to protect my 5 year olds right to surf the net and enjoy the pron pop ups the these unethical perverts want to send.

It's nice to see that you prefer to let Witch-finder General Ashcroft into my computer and my bedroom rather than take responsibility to raise your own child.

Are you such a bad parent that you think a nanny-State can do a better job?

Your five year-old daughter might well be shocked by seeing porn on your computer; but I wager she'd be wakened by screaming nightmares for a month if she saw these pictures of the results of the Nazi Holocaust. (Note that two of the pictures, including the one of the emaciated children your daughter's age who were subjected to medical "experiments", are served up by a Florida public school system.)

Should we remove those pictures from the Internet to protect your daughter? Turn the Holocaust survivors' "never again" into "never again seen"?

What about pictures of Pol Pot's Killing Fields?

Will throwing those pictures down the memory hole make your job as parent any easier?

What about sanitizing inconvenient pictures of America's Iraq War?

Is you daughter too young for those pictures of her country's "accomplishments"? Shall we censor them too?

Or maybe it's a better idea you sit with your five-year old while she browses the internet?

link

Is it true that for 7 minutes after Bush was told that the second plane hit the WTC, he continued to read to elementary schoolkids?

According to the Memory Hole, is is.

How about Uzbekistan...? That's probably one of the worst dictators on the planet. but then, he's an "ally"

The propaganda has always existed, and may even be necessary, and this is just a new way of doing it. I for one am looking forward to America's Army: Torture!, but I just hope they can get better models than this. She's no Lora or Samus, that's for sure.

Reunite Church and State?
Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques ?

Hold citizens with[out] trial or bail?
Hmm, even the CATO Institute seems to think this is a bad idea.

Nation building without proper cause?
Well, the US gives lots of money to Israel. As for Iraq and Afghanistan: you call that building?!?!

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich?
Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Dismantle the EPA and let Corporations write Enviro Laws?
It's called the "Clear Skies Initiative", probably because it clearly pollutes the sky. There's also Cheney's Energy Task force, but I can't give you supporting evidence because it is being withheld, even from the Government Accounting Office.

Create a Police State where you can spy on cizitens with impunity?
We're reading about this right now.

Fake "news" videos produced by the government using actors instead. Much more credible then "real" people actually reporting stuff. Nope, the US government doesn't "embed" propoganda, it's all those other furrin countries that have funny sounding names who are slap fulla "tarists" that do that.

Anyway, I noticed that replicant108 didn't actually give links to BBC, CNN, AFP, Reuters. I don't really read CNN while AFP and Reuters are syndicated so that I don't notice them, but here's some BBC and Guardian:

Murder 1
Murder 2

Sodomy 1
Sodomy 2
Sodomy 3
Sodomy 4
Sodomy 5

Rape 1
Rape 2
Rape 3
Rape 4

It is also interesting that the military has successfully censored/surpressed the significantly worse images that Senator Ron Wyden described.

I personally have lost confidence in the military as a whole, hopefully the few decent souls who are brave enough to speak out will prevail, but if I was a soldier, I'd have to think seriously before leaking any material. I couldn't get a Reuters link, but here is a BBC report by Reuters staff stating that they were tortured, even though it is denied by the military. In my not so humble opinion, the institution of the military needs a overhaul. It is fundamentally undemocratic. It restricts the free flow of information (need to know basis), personal liberty (chain of command) and is unjust (military justice - ha). Is the best way to tackle terrorism with the military or would we be better to take a policing approach?

Finally, from the horse's mouth, reports of Sodomy and Rape, the Taguba report itself.

All this reminds me of the quote attributed to Gandhi. When asked what he thought of Western Civilisation, he reply that he thought it was a good idea. Sigh, happy reading.

someone should get it over to them ASAP, before it disappears.

This is all very distressing. These fascists must be stopped. I wonder when they'll have our Kristalnacht or when will these neocons burn down the Capitol Building. These are dark days we are living in.

RS

The Freedom of Information Act. Don't forget the guy at the memory hole was able to get a hold of a couple hundred photos of the arrival of casualties from Iraq which the White House had banned simply because he had bothered to put in a FOIA request. The W.H. banned all press access to these ceremonies, and only one or two pictures had surfaced publicly. He scooped most of the major media on it.

The Freedom of Information Act. Don't forget the guy at the memory hole was able to get a hold of a couple hundred photos of the arrival of casualties from Iraq which the White House had banned simply because he had bothered to put in a FOIA request. The W.H. banned all press access to these ceremonies, and only one or two pictures had surfaced publicly. He scooped most of the major media on it.

They're not hard to find.

What's more disturbing are the details in this leaked US army report

They're not hard to find.

What's more disturbing are the details in this leaked US army report

the most shocking Iraqi photos were not taken by photo-journalists but by soldiers and government contractors who used a digital camera, a CD burner and an internet connection to zip the photos around the world with an ease that has never existed before.

What photos?!

are you still having HOT GAYS SEX with your brother?

thumbs up!

1. The press has become so lopsided, so Democrat, that they are so eager to demean the current administration that they can't even bother to check the validity of the images of "Soldiers killed in Iraqi combat".


The press is using images obtained by The Memory Hole under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The request was for any photos of soldiers killed in Iraq. The Department of Defense, in response to the request gave a CD of photos The Memory Hole.

The Memory Hole made those photos available to the press.

Everyone in that chain thought the photos were of our Iraq dead because of an error by the Department of Defense. You're the only one foolish enough to blame "the press" for the government's error.

Even if some of the phots are of the Space Shuttle astronauts, those photos showing more than seven caskets certainly are not.

And even if all the photos were "invalid" that doesn't change the facts: over 700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and the current administration has tried to suppress photos of caskets -- and Bush has failed to attend a ingle soldier's funeral -- because the administration
doesn't want the American public to get a visceral feel for the costs of this unnecessary war.

I suppose you think that it's because of "press bias" that no photos of the putative "reason" for going to war, the soi-disant Weapons of Mass Destruction, have been published?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/

"...why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
-- Barbara Bush on ABC/Good Morning America, March 18, 2003

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/

"...why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
-- Barbara Bush on ABC/Good Morning America, March 18, 2003

What I understand, freedom of expression is guaranteed in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression ; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of fronteirs."
[emphasis added]. So if there is any nation that is not a part of the United Nations, sure, imposing these restrictions on the freedom of the government of these nations would be imposing their own beliefs on these other cultures. This does not sound like what these people are doing, however. There is no excuse whatsoever for government censorship by any government who is a member of the United Nations(this means you, China, United States of America, and Canada).

Sure, one may argue that the United Nations may be unnecessary, outdated, completely irrelevent or otherwise, but as it stands today, we are obligated to fufil our part of the bargain, despite how sometimes we may disagree with it, or alternatively, decline membership to the United Nations and become a Rogue State, with none of the protections to you that The Declaration provides.

These guys sound down-right nuts, though. If a dictator is willing to kill thousands of his own people, what makes you think they won't assasinate you, if you actively mess with them? Kudos to their efforts.

and your wish shall be granted...

The Memory Hole has lots of goodies. The following was of particular personal interest:

DOJ Attorney Diversity