Tuesday, February 28, 2006

You're doing a heck of a job, Dubie

The Webster Retort
By Stephen Webster
Investigative Reporter
Publication date: Mar. 3, 2006

You're doing a heck of a job, Dubie

Hurricane Katrina blasted the coast and drove thousands of our poorest into the streets to suffer and die for seven days while the president played guitar and ate cake. Weeks later, he traveled to New Orleans with his cavalcade of theatre tech majors. They came in early one morning and built a stage, strung lights, set up generators and prepared seating. When the whole performance was over, the lights went out. The generators were sent back to Washington. The stage was torn down and scrapped. The people of the city remained without access to electricity, clean water or medical assistance.

Remember that Bushism classic, “You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie”?

Yes, Michael Brown. Ex-Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Former Fearless Leader of the Arabian Horse Association. Patsy of the administration. Lap dog to Homeland Security’s Fuhrer, Michael Chertoff. Fashion connoisseur and all-around dope. You get the point.

Michael Brown’s appointment to FEMA was mostly overlooked by the press. Thankfully, this insanity about the Dubai Ports World deal has caught the mainstream. Given the lessons of Hurricane Brownie, I can only imagine what will happen when the United Arab Emirates, a former ally of Afghanistan’s Taliban, takes over terminals in 21 – yes, Twenty One - American sea ports.

I, like you, wondered just what the hell is going on. Where cronyism dictated the appointment of Brown, cronyism is dictating Bush’s shocking resistance to common sense. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Treasury Secretary John Snow, one of the principal members of the secret commission that approved the port deal, was the chairman of a company called CSX. They sold their international port operations to DP World in 2004, coming away with a cool $1.15 billion. In January of 2006, a man named David Sanborn was appointed by the president to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. Before that, he managed DP World’s European and Latin American operations. Neil Bush, Georgie’s “other” brother, has received significant financial aid from UAE investors in his software business. Better still, the Carlyle Group, a defense firm and Who’s Who of Republican Elite (big dollar winner for Poppa Bush) is holding $8 billion of Dubai International Capital’s investment dollars.

The foolishness is unparalleled. United Arab Emirates does not recognize Israel as a state. Their banks financed the 9/11 attacks. The CIA says UAE royals met with Osama shortly after we were attacked. Bush was unaware of the deal for nearly a month after it was approved, but believes we are safe because he conducted a thorough (sigh) 24 hour review. Even the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield, did not know about it until reporters asked him. Now the Coast Guard says it is both under funded and concerned about “intelligence gaps” in dealing with the UAE. Great.

The cup finally ran over when the president started playing the race card. See, if you are concerned about this thing, you are a bigot and a segregationist. All you Arab Haters should be ashamed.

I do not think I am the only one who resents the insinuation.

Faced with a nonstop barrage of questions, the sale was downgraded from “giving over control of our ports” to the “leasing of a single terminal within the port.” It was almost like going from “Mushroom Cloud” to “WMD’s” to “weapons programs” to, uh, “Freedom salads for everyone. With croutons. But no dressing. If we have the dressing, the terrorists win.”

Let’s consider another of our nation’s valuable entry points: airports. They have been in the center of Homeland Security’s efforts to harass and annoy, I mean, defend the homeland. And we still do not secure air freight. But I digress. If the Iraqi Sunni’s owned an airline called “Air Iraq,” would it be allowed to “lease a terminal” at D/FW airport? Had the UAE’s old friends in the Taliban raised up a fleet of aircraft and dubbed it “AfganiContential,” would you use them for a connecting flight?

If the president is serious about this “war on terror,” how can he make enemies out of countries which “harbor terrorists,” then strike a multi-billion dollar business deal with a state that harbors terrorists? Indeed, the absence of logic has created a vacuum of greed. We have destroyed the Taliban and now seek to open our ports to their ally. But, they supposedly grow great pot. In fact, the drug trade is a major cog in these countries’ economies!

After all, the Taliban came to Texas in 1997 under then governor Bush. The result was a Unocal oil pipeline in Afghanistan, the same country in which Osama vanished after 9/11. Next time, we’ll just let ‘ole UBL hide out in the governor’s mansion. I am sure Rick Perry’s ubiquitous hair could use the company. If Bush keeps this up, he’ll be grappling with an angry Democratic Congress next January.

“You’re doing a heck of a job, Dubie.” And like true a stoner, he passed to the left.

Mahalo.

Stephen Webster is an Investigative Reporter and Syndicated Columnist with The News Connection, a Staff Columnist with George W. Bush’s hometown weekly The Lone Star Iconoclast, and a former Contributor to The Dallas Morning News’ Science & Technology section. For more of Webster’s musings, visit The Gonzo Muckraker.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

O'Reilly - Get U.S. out of Iraq "as fast as humanly possible"

From Media Matters ...

Click here and listen to Bill O'Reilly shoving his foot into his mouth and backing down from his last three years of deceptive rhetoric about the war in Iraq.

Listen carefully.

Did you catch that? If so, you heard correctly.

On Feb. 20, 2006, Bill O'Reilly called for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq. Last year, in November, O'Reilly said that people who do not support the war are "pinheads" and "Hitler appeasers."

In case you don't want to listen to an audio file, O'Reilly's exact words were ...
O'REILLY: "Somewhat of a disturbing report out of Iraq, and it's more important than it first appears. The governor of -- or the mayor of Karbala, which is a town in the south part of Iraq, Shiite-controlled, has banned any further government dealings with the American military in his province, saying that they're not behaving well." [A Lie.]

"Now, it's a small little thing, but I picked up on it, because here is the essential problem in Iraq. There are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them. And I don't -- we're never gonna be able to control them. So the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible. Because we just can't control these crazy people. This is all over the place. And that was the big mistake about America: They didn't -- it was the crazy-people underestimation. We did not know how to deal with them -- still don't. But they're just all over the place."
Its odd, really, how whores for money and media just buckle in the face of the majority opinion. Even Bill O'Reilly is against the war.

Bring the troops home. Now.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

May God Bless the Peacemakers

The Webster Retort
By Stephen Webster
Publication date: Feb. 24, 2006

May God Bless the Peacemakers

On Saturday, Feb. 18, 2006, the U.S. National Council of Churches denounced the war in Iraq. The statement was issued at the largest gathering of Christian churches in over a decade. Thirty-four world-wide denominations stood together and declared the war to have been “launched in deception, and [in violation of] global norms of justice and human rights,” adding, “We mourn all who have died or been injured in this war. We acknowledge with shame abuses carried out in our name.”

Now, before you write off that entire paragraph as the grumblings of a handful of west coast liberal intellectuals, consider the scope of the announcement. The U.S. National Council of Churches encompasses quite a few Christian denominations, including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Methodists, Orthodox Christians and Baptists. In other words, most of your neighbors now belong to an organization that is opposed to the Iraq war. The council does not include the Catholic Church, but that’s okay - the Pope doesn’t support the war either.

The announcement is the first of its kind from America Right. The perception of many liberals in America is that the largest Christian denominations are the driving force behind much of the pseudo-fascism emanating from the White House. But I knew better. I was raised Methodist. I even went to private Christian academies until my mid-adolescence. Deep down inside, I knew that true, peace-loving Christians would not – could not – go along with the war for very long. I was right, thank God.

Around the world, human societies are in the midst of a great upheaval; a social evolution that has pitted the systems of old against the forces of new, driven by the ever-expanding human consciousness. In America, we have our Neo Conservatives and Liberal Elite. That group, though divided by bitter, partisan struggle, wants one thing: control. The Republicans are also privy to small government conservatives, whereas the Democrats have their “liberty” liberals (a term of my own invention). Both groups seek peace and the betterment of our society and others around the world. This group connects people in an ever-shrinking global economy.

The Connect Culture and the Control Culture are philosophical inventions of Harvard Sociology professor Phillip Slater. He argues that the two are in the midst of a great struggle around the world. Indeed, the existence of control and connect negates the right versus left divide that has been imposed on American politics. The idea cuts each half into fourths, bringing members of both groups closer together.

The revolt began in the 60’s, when a large portion of our society spontaneously rose up against the Control Culture. For the first time in our history, the people of this nation stopped a war and embarrassed those who started it. Today’s American Neo Conservatives are a multiplication of the hate and fear elicited by the rapid movement of the earliest connectors. The Bush administration is a fierce rebuttal to a brief period when the connectors of both America Left and Right – and around the world - began to make progress. As the internet and mass communication becomes the norm, people are being drawn closer together. For the first time, all over the world, truly civilized societies are realizing the utter worthlessness of war and the immense value of cooperation. In a global society, stepping on another’s toe can effectively break your own leg.

However, the transition from Control to Connect is far from over. One system has yet to relinquish its grasp, and the other has yet to fully take hold. Ideologues cut from the same mold hold sway over America and the very modern Islamic Republic of Iran. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes statements that put a shine to Adolf Hitler, the connectors of Iran pitch fits. When George W. Bush evokes the crusades – the wholesale slaughter of Muslims at the hands of Medieval Christians – American connectors cringe just as greatly. Together, the controllers of both cultures are trying to whip up a new conflict to perpetuate their power, extending the systems of old.

The U.S. National Council of Churches is the first sign that the connectors of America Right are waking up again. Welcome back, friends. We may disagree on economic policies and social programs, but a very clear, defined majority of Americans now stand together with the joined purpose of ending the Iraq war and preventing the invasion of Iran. It is good to know some of my Christian brothers and sisters still believe the peacemakers to be blessed by God.

The end of the Control Culture may not come within my lifetime, as movements such as this are more a force of human evolution than conscious choice. Given the transcendental scope of mankind’s awakening, I find comfort in knowing that future generations may not have to suffer the unending tragedy of war.

Stephen Webster is an Investigative Reporter and Syndicated Columnist with The News Connection, a Staff Columnist with George W. Bush’s hometown weekly The Lone Star Iconoclast, and a former Contributor to The Dallas Morning News’ Science & Technology section.

US Christians denounce Iraq war

Found this news, ah, somewhere. It is by an AP writer, but I haven't seen it on the wire yet. Something as important as this needs to be on CNN or on the front of The Washington Post. Instead it made SeattlePI.com. *sigh*

U.S. church alliance denounces Iraq war
By BRIAN MURPHY
AP RELIGION WRITER

PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil -- A coalition of American churches sharply denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq on Saturday, accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other nations for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."

The statement, issued at the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade, also warned the United States was pushing the world toward environmental catastrophe with a "culture of consumption" and its refusal to back international accords seeking to battle global warming.

"We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights," said the statement from representatives of the 34 U.S. members of World Council of Churches. "We mourn all who have died or been injured in this war. We acknowledge with shame abuses carried out in our name."

The World Council of Churches includes more than 350 mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox churches; the Roman Catholic Church is not a member. The U.S. groups in the WCC include the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, several Orthodox churches and Baptist denominations, among others.

[...]

On Friday, the U.S. National Council of Churches - which includes many WCC members - released a letter appealing to Washington to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and saying reports of alleged torture violated "the fundamental Christian belief in the dignity of the human person."

[...]

The Rev. Sharon Watkins, president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), worried that some may interpret the statement as undermining U.S. troops in Iraq.

"We honor their courage and sense of duty, but ... we, as people of faith, have to say to our brothers and sisters, `We are so profoundly sorry,'" Watkins said.

Preach the truth, Sister.

Friday, February 17, 2006

Not in my name!

WARNING! THIS VIDEO CONTAINS DISTURBING IMAGES AND NUDITY. IT IS HIGHLY OFFENSIVE, AND SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED BY MINORS.

On Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006, Australia's SBS Dateline aired this report on newly discovered photographs and video shot in the American-run Abu Ghraib prison/torture camp. This is not for the weak of heart or stomach! Click here to watch the report.


Now, before you get upset and write a blistering email telling me how many troops I killed by posting this link, you should consider the following ...

From Newsweek:
Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war. In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell and America's top military lawyers—and they left underlings to sweat the details of what actually happened to prisoners in these lawless places. While no one deliberately authorized outright torture, these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation—methods that the Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture."
From USA Today:
The Justice Department in 2002 asserted that President Bush's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties. Gonzales, while at the White House, wrote similar memos.

[...]

[T]he original documents set up a legal framework that led to abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at the U.S. prison camp for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"What they're trying to do is continue their attacks on President Bush because of his policies since 9/11 that the people didn't buy on Nov. 2," [Texas Senator John] Cornyn said. "They also are trying to muddy the water to make it harder for the president to nominate him for the Supreme Court later on."

From The Washington Post:
The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

[...]

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.
From CNN:
Retired U.S. Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told CNN that the practice of torture may be continuing in U.S.-run facilities.

"There's no question in my mind that we did. There's no question in my mind that we may be still doing it," Wilkerson said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated -- in the vice president of the United States' office," he said. "His implementer in this case was [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department."

At another point in the interview, Wilkerson said "the vice president had to cover this in order for it to happen and in order for Secretary Rumsfeld to feel as though he had freedom of action."

From Veterans for Common Sense:
The latest is something that once would have been unthinkable as a policy of the United States: The officially sanctioned abuse and inhumane treatment of some prisoners or suspects in the war on terror.

Cheney mounted a major effort to defeat an amendment to the defense spending bill that merely adopted as U.S. policy the standard Geneva Convention language prohibiting the treatment of terrorist prisoners or suspects in "cruel," "humiliating" and "degrading" ways. The amendment was introduced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a Navy hero in the Vietnam War who was among the many Americans who were beaten, abused and tortured as prisoners of war.

After the Senate adopted the amendment by a vote of 90-9, Cheney began urging Republican senators to at least add a loophole that would exempt operatives of the CIA from that policy. In other words, America's veep would have America tell the world that it is OK for certain U.S. personnel to treat prisoners and suspects in ways that are "cruel," "humiliating" and "degrading" - as long as the U.S. personnel draw paychecks from the appropriate pocket of the U.S. bureaucracy. In this case, the CIA.
So, before you rail against any media outlet for letting you know what your government is doing, think long and hard about your reasons. Which is more dangerous - politicians who order the torture of prisoners who are not accused of any crime? Or the reporters who find out about it and tell the truth? Which inflames "the enemy" more? The act its self? Or those who would speak truth to power?

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales made this happen. They wrote the orders, the memos, the legal opinions; they allow these crimes to be committed in the name of America.

The Administration encourages this abuse, committed in your name, like it or not.

Want it to stop?

Democrats.com is organizing protests in front of the homes of our federal representatives. They aim to pursuade members of Congress from every congressional district in the United States to support the impeachment of George W. Bush and the end of his war of aggression against Iraq.

Please support the effort to restore America's moral standing in the world. With centralized organization, the peace movement can once again shake the halls of power. These people answer to us, but only with a concerted, unified voice will we be able to hold them accountable for the horrors they have executed in our name.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Court: Govt. must release all documents

Good news today! A federal judge has ruled in favor of civil rights and ordered the government to turn over "all documents" related to Bush's domestic spying program.

WASHINGTON - A federal judge Thursday ordered the Justice Department to respond within 20 days to requests by a civil liberties group for documents about President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program.

The ruling was a victory for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which sued the department under the Freedom of Information Act in seeking the release of the documents. U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy ruled that the department must finish processing the group’s requests and produce or identify all records within 20 days.

“Given the great public and media attention that the government’s warrantless surveillance program has garnered and the recent hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the public interest is particularly well served by the timely release of the requested documents,” he said.

Nobody likes a crumbled cookie ...

... but that is always the way it goes, isn't it?

I worked for an hour trimming down my column for this week's News Connection, and it got cut out entirely.

The damned cookie wins again.

Owning the Armstrong ranch

Owning the Armstrong ranch, where Cheney shot Whittington, must be fun. By God, they've got everything and more there! I mean, that Anne Armstrong has been nothing but a greased cog for the people she is in the limelight with now. Take a read of what I just found.

Pioneer Tobin Armstrong’s ancestor, Texas Ranger John B. Armstrong, bought the beginnings of the Armstrong Ranch in 1882 with the $4,000 bounty he received for capturing outlaw John Wesley Hardin. In 1944 Tobin’s older brother wed an heir of legendary King Ranch (see Fausto Yturria), linking two of the biggest ranches in Texas. The Armstrong Ranch has since gone global, with tracts in Australia and South America. In recent years, Tobin and his wife, Anne, have hosted many GOP dignitaries--including the first and second President Bush--on their 50,000-acre Armstrong Ranch in South Texas. “We go out when the dew is still on the grass, and then hunt until we shoot our limit,” Tobin said in 2000 of his ranch outings with Dick Cheney. “Then we pick a fine spot and have a wild game picnic lunch.”

True conservatives might choke on their javelina steaks if they knew that Tobin Armstrong dunned the government for $11,336 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2002, according to the Environmental Working Group. Anne Armstrong served as: a close advisor to President Nixon; President Ford’s British Ambassador; and approved covert actions on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under Reagan. A veteran of blue-chip corporate boards, Anne Armstrong was a Halliburton director when that corporation hired Cheney. She is Kay Bailey Hutchison’s best friend, having helped launch the senator’s career as Republican National Committee co-chair in 1971. George W. Bush appointed Anne Armstrong as a Texas A&M regent in 1997. She and her husband were part of Laura Bush’s delegation to the funeral of Queen Mother Elizabeth in 2002.

As a Kenedy County Commissioner in 2001, Tobin Armstrong expressed serious reservations about a short-lived Bush administration plan to relocate a Navy bomb-testing site from Puerto Rico to the fragile sand dunes of a local beach. Daughter Katharine Armstrong--formerly Katherine Idsal--and ex-son-in-law Warren Idsal also are Pioneers. President Bush invited Tobin, Anne and Katharine Armstrong to a White House sleepover.
Source: WhiteHouseForSale.org (bipartisan)

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

A Peppering of Insanity - SHORT Version

This is the shortened version of my Feb. 17, 2006 column. I trimmed it to fit space requirements imposed by The News Connection. The full version is going into The Lone Star Iconoclast.
=========================

The Webster Retort
By Stephen Webster
Investigative Reporter
Publication date: Feb. 17, 2006

A Peppering of Insanity

When did we all lose our minds? The Vice President of the United States shoots a 78 year old man in THE FACE with a SHOTGUN, and then hides the story for 24 hours, trying to figure out what the official cover would be. A private citizen is chosen as the official mouthpiece and informs the local weekly paper. Three days later The New York Times runs a report that concludes stating the victim has accepted responsibility for the accident. “He got peppered pretty good,” said Anne Armstrong. “But it wasn’t a big deal. […] You know, I’ve been peppered pretty well myself.”

Not a big deal. Sure. The man is now carrying over 200 flying balls of metal in his body, and one actually migrated to his heart and caused a cardiac arrest. Did you know that if he dies, Cheney could be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter? Not a big deal. Uh-huh.
I spent three summers in the Boy Scouts, shooting skeet with 20 gage shotguns in West Texas. I fired the same weapon that Cheney used that day, and I never hit a person. Even someone who has never touched a gun should know the cardinal rule. What is that rule? You shouldn’t need a reminder. When using a gun, BE FREAKING CAREFUL!

Scott McClellan, the White House Press Secretary, claimed that the president was told a member of Cheney’s hunting party had been injured about an hour after the incident, on Saturday evening. But Bush was not told that Cheney was the shooter until Sunday. Does the president have so little control of his office that his VP can shoot a man and hide it from him for a full day? Or have we elected one man, only to have another take his place?

I heard someone say that these sorts of accidents happen all the time. Yet, last year the state of Texas had just 2.7 hunting accidents per 100,000 licenses sold. But if you bite down on the official story hook, line and sinker, you know that it is really not a big deal to get “peppered.” Hell, you pepper your potatoes every night, right? Peppering an old man’s face must not be any different. But that day’s hunt was. Many hunters know of the practice, and many decry it as dishonorable and disingenuous. Yes, the outing Mr. Cheney was on is what most hunters call a “canned hunt.”

In these morbid bloodbaths, old, white men with shotguns stand next to their cars on the side of a road and fire at animals that were released by the land owner. The quails Cheney tried to kill were raised in a small pen and had their wings clipped, making them nothing more than living target practice. They ran out from behind a bush (no pun intended) and get blown to pieces from close range. It is a rotten, ugly way to kill an animal, and hunting from car-side is illegal on public (but not private) land in Texas. Cheney cannot get enough of it.

Cheney went to Pennsylvania in December of 2003 with Texas Senator John Cornyn on one of these canned hunts. Together with a handful of Republican campaign contributors and lobbyists, they blasted 417 pen-raised birds in a matter of a few hours. Cheney was credited with 70 kills that day, a number which does not include people that may have looked like a quail, fortunately.

He was not drunk, but no tests were administered to prove that. The local Sheriff’s Department did interview the Vice President about it, but only after deputies were turned once away by the Secret Service on Cheney’s orders; they returned 19 hours later. However, until it is proven otherwise, I do believe that it was an accident. Certainly Cheney did not mean to shoot Whittington. But as on Wednesday, Feb. 15, five full days after the shooting, Cheney has not said one word to the public. That is simply disgraceful.

People, this is a matter of character. The simple fact that he did not go to the public immediately speaks volumes of the man we call our Vice President. Dispersing information through a campaign donor is no way for a leader to put such sober news to the public. To suggest this is “not a big deal” is like suggesting George W. Bush eating a live kitten in front of the White House Press Corps is a fun, family friendly show. And to hide away for five whole days (as of this writing) and refuse to talk to the press is downright shameful.

He is the first Vice President to have shot a man since Aaron Burr killed General Alexander Hamilton in a pistol duel in 1804.

He should resign immediately.

That’s my opinion, and I’m stickin’ to it.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

A Peppering of Insanity

The Webster Retort
By Stephen Webster
Investigative Reporter
Publication date:
Feb. 17, 2006

A Peppering of Insanity

What the hell is wrong with this scene? Could somebody tell me? When did we all lose our minds? The Vice President of the United States shoots a 78 year old man in THE FACE with a SHOTGUN, and then hides the story for 24 hours, trying to figure out what the official cover would be. The land owner and only witness calls the local weekly paper (no offense to my employers) to make it public, and three days later The New York Times runs a report that concludes stating the victim has accepted responsibility for the accident. “He got peppered pretty good,” said Anne Armstrong, the only witness (and apparently the only spokesperson for the Vice President on this matter). “But it wasn’t a big deal. Harry should have let us know that he was back there. […] You know, I’ve been peppered pretty well myself.”

Peppered? Being peppered by shotgun pellets, of all things, is not a “big deal”? Sure, maybe if someone THREW THEM at you! But when propelled by gunpowder, hurtling out of a long, metal barrel … Good God! Do some people really believe this is not a significant event?

Scott McClellan, the White House Press Secretary, claimed that the president was told a member of Cheney’s hunting party had been injured about an hour after the incident, on Saturday evening. But Bush was not told that Cheney was the shooter until Sunday. What is going on here? Does the president have so little control of his office that his VP can shoot a 78 year old man in the face with a shotgun and hide it from him for a full day? Or have we elected one man, only to have another take his place?

On top of that, the story they came up with in those 24 hours after the shooting simply does not wash. According to Armstrong, Harry Whittington fired a shot and went to retrieve the bird. Cheney moved a little further on toward another group of birds. Whittington walked up behind Cheney as the birds “flushed.” Cheney followed the birds with his shotgun and fired, somehow hitting Whittington at a distance of 30 yards.

Did you catch that? The victim approached the shooter from behind, away from where Cheney was pointing the gun. Cheney spun around and fired, striking Whittington from a short distance. In the end, they both conclude that it was Whittington’s fault for not yelling, “I’m here!” while Cheney was drawing a bead on a flock of birds just yards away. Hm. Blame the victim. Good thinking.

And let us not forget what happened just before the shot was fired. Whittington supposedly shot a fowl and went to retrieve it. I don’t know how quails in other parts of the U.S. react when a shotgun goes off, but in Texas they scatter to the wind for nearly a mile around. How can one logically explain birds just sitting there after a nearby blast from a firearm that size?

I heard someone say that these sorts of accidents happen all the time. Yet, last year the state of Texas had just 2.7 hunting accidents per 100,000 licenses sold. But if you bite down on the official story hook, line and sinker, you know that it is really not a big deal to get “peppered.” Hell, you pepper your potatoes every night, right? Peppering an old man’s face must not be any different. But that day’s hunt was. Many hunters know of the practice, and many decry it as dishonorable and disingenuous. Yes, the outing Mr. Cheney was on is what most hunters call a “canned hunt.”

In these morbid bloodbaths, old, white men with shotguns stand next to their cars on the side of a road and fire at animals that were released by the land owner. The quails Cheney tried to kill were raised in a small pen and intentionally dizzied before released, making them nothing more than living target practice. They run out from behind a bush (haha, but no pun intended) and get blown to pieces from a distance of 50 yards or less. It is a rotten, ugly way to kill an animal, and hunting from car-side is illegal on public (but not private) land in Texas. But Cheney cannot get enough of it.

Cheney went to Pennsylvania in December of 2003 with Texas Senator John Cornyn on one of these canned hunts. Together with a handful of Republican campaign contributors and lobbyists, they blasted 417 pen-raised birds in a matter of a few hours. Cheney was credited with 70 kills that day, a number which does not include people that may have looked like a quail, fortunately.

Until it is proved otherwise, and in spite of my better judgment, I believe that it was an accident; Cheney did not mean to shoot Whittington. He was not drunk (“officially”), and the local Sheriff’s Department conducted an investigation (albeit a very, very fast investigation). Now we can all just sit back and enjoy the jokes on late night television. Unfortunately, what I have to say is no joke.

To think that we have a Vice President who acts like he runs the White House! He shot an old man in the face with a shotgun and kept it secret for a day, managing to hide it from the president and the press until a campaign donor called a local paper. He was hunting without proper license, and denied local police an interview until a day later (which could be construed to constitute obstruction of justice). People, this is a matter of character. The simple fact that he did not go to the public immediately speaks volumes of the man we call our Vice President. Dispersing information through a campaign donor is no way for a leader to put such sober news to the public. To suggest this is “not a big deal” is like suggesting George W. Bush eating a live kitten in front of the White House Press Corps is a fun, family friendly show.

The Vice President shot a 78 year old man in the face with a shotgun, then ran and hid. He is the first Vice President to have shot a man since Aaron Burr killed General Alexander Hamilton in a pistol duel in 1804. He should resign immediately.

That’s my opinion, and I’m stickin’ to it.

Stephen Webster is an Investigative Reporter and Syndicated Columnist with The News Connection, a Staff Columnist with George W. Bush’s hometown weekly The Lone Star Iconoclast, and a former Contributor to The Dallas Morning News’ Science & Technology section. For more of Webster’s musings, visit GonzoMuckraker.BlogSpot.com.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Pulp Non-Fiction, 2006

I made this. It is my own. An original Webster. Do not copy it or take credit for it. If you want to distribute it, please link back here.


He's one hard nigga, motherfucka.

Cheney shoots a guy

Normally, the above headline would be a joke. A mere farce. Comedy. But not today.

On late Saturday afternoon, Vice President Dick Cheney and Texas lawyer Harry Whittington were out bird hunting. Somehow, the VP managed to point the barrel of the gun at Mr. Whittington and pull the trigger, "spraying" him with "birdshot," and injuring him "in the face, neck and chest."

Ouch. But also odd.

Editor and Publisher has an interesting point.
The delay in announcing the shooting "will likely be the main question asked of the White House about the apparent accidental shooting of a 78-year-old man during a Texas hunting trip by the vice president," the Tribune's James wrote on the Washington bureau's blog at the newspaper's site.

"When a vice president of the U.S. shoots a man under any circumstance," James noted, "that is extremely relevant information. What might be the excuse to justify not immediately making the incident public?"

"The vice president is well-known for preferring to operate in secret....Some secrecy, especially when it comes to the executing the duties of president or vice president, is understandable and expected by Americans."

"But when the vice president's office, or the White House, delays in reporting a shooting like Saturday's to the public via the media, it needlessly raises suspicions and questions of trust. And it may just further the impression held by many, rightly or wrongly, that the White House doesn't place the highest premium on keeping the public fully and immediately informed."

According to their timeline, news of the shooting was held for over 18 hours. In Texas, any gun accident/crime must be reported to a local police department right away. But was this shooting reported in such a manor? Wouldn't the press have gotten the story, oh say, 18 hours earlier if standard legal channels had been followed? Does this inaction constitute a crime?

The answers have yet to surface. All we know if that our VP shot a guy in the face then covered it up for half a day. That doesn't lend much credit to the man's office.

Thompson on Iraq

Click the picture to watch a clip of Hunter S. Thompson speaking with Tim Russert about his views on the Iraq war.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

20 Years of Bush

Look at this picture.


Notice anything odd about it? Sure, on first glance, it seems sort of French. The great leader gets a chissled bust of himself. Yea. But notice the date engraved for the end of his second term?

Yeah, there is no date.

I thought I was just being a paranoid liberal the first time I saw the picture. I figured that, no matter how many times Bush crossed the line, he would be out at the start of 2009, for sure. And he is likely to hand his power over to whoever his successor is. Right?

Not if House Joint Resolution 24 passes.

What is House Joint Resolution 24? House Republicans Berman, Sensenbrenner, Sabo, and Pallone have proposed amending the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment under House Joint Resolution 24. If successful, Bush (or his successor) could remain in office for an undetermined amount of time.

Like a King. Or a Dictator.

How do you feel about another couple decades under Bush?

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Gonzales versus Common Sense, Round One

The Webster Retort
By Stephen Webster
Investigative Reporter
Publication date: Feb. 10, 2006

Gonzales versus Common Sense, Round One

On Monday, Feb. 6, 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sat before the Senate and answered questions about the Bush Domestic Spying program. Judging from the transcripts that have surfaced, it was a riveting exchange with plenty of finger shaking and carefully worded statements.

Since the story about Bush’s warrantless spying and wiretapping broke in December of 2005, there has been a lot of talk on the Right about using it as a blunt weapon against Democrats. The line is that Democrats care about partisan politics more than national security, making them unpatriotic, friends of Osama, Freedom Haters, and all-around bad dudes. There has been so much table-pounding on part of the Right, many think Congress will just sit down and drown its loss of oversight powers in a bottle of Wild Turkey. But if the first grilling of Alberto Gonzales is any indicator, Congress just may be on the road to Sober Justice.

The first volleys fired against the Administration were from none other than Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter on Sunday’s Meet the Press. He told Journalist Tim Russert that the argument being presented by Bush is “very strained and unrealistic.” He went on to say, “The authorization for the use of force doesn’t say anything about electronic surveillance. The issue was never raised with the Congress. And there is a specific statute on the books, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which says flatly that you can’t undertake that kind of surveillance without a court order.” On Monday, when bringing the Senate hearing to order, Specter refused to allow Gonzales to be placed under oath, and denied other Senators the opportunity to show video clips of Gonzales’ past statements.

Nevertheless, Specter’s words served as a clear reminder to other Republicans that the issue of Domestic Spying is not partisan in nature. What is at stake is the support structure of our system of laws and the very fidelity of our constitution, he and others contended. At one point, Specter even reprimanded Gonzales for giving a non-answer, as many politicians do so frequently. “I don’t think you can use principle of avoiding a tough constitutional conflict by disagreeing with the plain words of the statute,” said Specter. “Attorney General Gonzales, when members of Congress heard about your contention that the resolution authorizing the use of force amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act there was general shock.”

Gonzales responded with a muddled bit of tripe. “We’ve never asserted that FISA has been amended. We’ve always asserted that our interpretation of FISA, which contemplates another statute and we have that here in the authorization to use force, those complement each other. This is not a situation where FISA has been overwritten or FISA has been amended. That’s never been our position.”

Specter promptly brushed him off, saying, That just defies logic and plain English.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined the fray, adding, “All I’m saying is the inherent authority argument in its application to me seems to have no boundaries when it comes to executive decisions in a time of war, it deals the Congress and courts out, Mr. Attorney General.”

Another major gaffe on Gonzales’ behalf came when he could not answer a question about propaganda. Democrat Diane Feinstein asked if Bush has the authority to suspend Section 503 of the National Security Act, which prohibits actions that would “influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media.” The Administration’s top legal mind responds that the question is too hard and he would not want to respond “off the cuff”. I have yet to figure out when the last time anything said before the United States Senate was “off the cuff”? But I digress.

The last, most important pillar of the Administration’s argument to fall was the contention that other presidents have used similar authority in times of war, and Bush’s Domestic Spying Programs are within his “constitutional authority.” He even brought this point up during the recent State of the Union address, saying, “Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.”

Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin hammered out a carefully worded line of questioning that turned the popular fabrication into a pile of rubble. Asked Feingold: “[D]o you know of any other President who has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA, since 1978, when FISA was passed?”

Gonzales, having argued the line that Bush could do it because Lincoln and FDR did similar things, lacked material to jaw about. “Um, none come to mind, Senator,” he said. “But maybe — I would be happy to look to see whether or not that’s the case.”

“I can take it as a no unless you submit something?” asked Feingold. “I can’t give you an answer,” responded Gonzales. After Gonzales refused to assure Democrat Joe Biden that no American “other than someone who has a communication that is emanating from foreign soil by a suspected terrorist” is being spied on, the mood of the Senator’s questions turned very skeptical. Once it was said and done, Gonzales was pulling bits of boiled egg out of his ears.

"It's a ridiculous argument, not only bad, it's ridiculous,” said former president Jimmy Carter. “Obviously, the attorney general who said it's all right to torture prisoners and so forth is going to support the person who put him in office. But he's a very partisan attorney general and there's no doubt that he would say that. I hope that eventually the case will go to the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that when it's over, the Supreme Court will rule that Bush has violated the law."

"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Carter continued. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."

Carter’s rebuke was even more strongly worded than those from the Senate, given that he was president when FISA became law. "If my voice is important to point of the intent of the law that was passed when I was president, I know all about that because it was one of the most important decisions I had to make."

Tuesday morning, a report surfaced in Right Wing magazine Insight, run by conservative paper The Washington Times, which accused Bush’s political strategist Karl Rove of trying to intimidate the party. Rove allegedly threatened Republican Senators and Representatives with a blacklisting if they do not support the Domestic Spying Program. Those who go against Rove will receive zero campaign funds from the RNC and will have their access to the president and the White House cut off completely.

And thus, efforts to strengthen ethics in Washington were successful and the Republican Party lived happily ever after.

All of this over a silly law the president said was written too long ago for the president to be forced to follow. Take it from Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." And he’s right, too.

Stephen Webster is an Investigative Reporter and Syndicated Columnist with The News Connection, a Staff Columnist with George W. Bush’s hometown weekly The Lone Star Iconoclast, and a former Contributor to The Dallas Morning News’ Science & Technology section. For more of Webster’s musings, visit GonzoMuckraker.BlogSpot.com.

Law vs. Bush, Round One

In one spectacular day, the wall of lies that the Bush administration's lackeys propped up to defend their illegal domestic spying programs came crumbling down. In his first session before Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike came together and ripped it to pieces, as evidenced below. It was the first step on a long road to impeaching George W. Bush, and it was the Republicans who gave the effort its momentum.

First lie to be trounced, the contention that other presidents have done it, so Bush is within the bounds of the law. In his most recent State of the Union address, President Bush said, “Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.”

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Gonzales if that is true.

FEINGOLD: Let me first ask, do you know of any other President who has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA, since 1978, when FISA was passed?

GONZALES: Um, none come to mind, Senator. But maybe — I would be happy to look to see whether or not that’s the case.

FEINGOLD: I can take it as a no unless you submit something?

GONZALES: I can’t give you an answer.


FEINGOLD: Ok.


Law: 1, Bush: 0
------------------

The second to fall was the contention that it targets members of terrorist organization, and no innocent American's Constitutional rights are ever violated.

Democrat Joe Biden drew his pickaxe with a sharply worded question.

BIDEN: Can you assure us, General, you are fully, totally informed and confident that you know the absolute detail with which this program is being conducted? Can you assure us you personally can assure us no one is being eavesdropped upon in the United States other than — other than someone who has a communication that is emanating from foreign soil by a suspected terrorist, al Qaeda, or otherwise?

GONZALES: Sir, I can’t give you absolute assurance.


Law: 2, Bush: 0
------------------

Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stabs his index finger directly into the eye of the beast with an accurate discription of the unknown legal underpinnings the Administration keeps claiming exist, but refuses to discuss.

Graham: All I’m saying is the inherent authority argument in its application to me seems to have no boundaries when it comes to executive decisions in a time of war, it deals the Congress and courts out, Mr. Attorney General.

Law: 3, Bush: 0
------------------

And finally, Republican Senator Arlen Specter comes down hard on Gonzales for being more Bill Clinton-ie than Bill Clinton ...

SPECTER: I don’t think you can use principle of avoiding a tough constitutional conflict by disagreeing with the plain words of the statute. Attorney General Gonzales, when members of Congress heard about your contention that the resolution authorizing the use of force amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act there was general shock.

GONZALES: We’ve never asserted that FISA has been amended. e’ve always asserted that our interpretation of FISA, which contemplates another statute and we have that here in the authorization to use force, those complement each other. this is not a situation where FISA has been overwritten or FISA has been amended. That’s never been our position.

SPECTER: That just defies logic and plain English.


Law: 4, Bush: 0.
------------------

In response to the tremendous gonging of Gonzales that we saw yesterday, the Administration's political strategist Karl Rove issued a threat to House and Senate Republicans: Back Domestic Spying, or face dire political consequences. This includes being cut off from RNC funds and access to the president entirely.

Right-Wing magazine Insight, owned by The Washington Times, said that the administration knows, at the end of this process, Mr. Bush could likely be voted to have violated FISA, which would automatically trigger impeachment hearings. By that time, the 2006 elections will be under way. All polls are predicting a major shift to the left.

Monday, February 06, 2006

Domestic Spying debate cracks National Republican Unity

On Sunday, Hope Yen of the Associated Press brought news of freshly formed cracks in the GOP's front line. Amid talks that Bush's domestic spying program could be illegal (and, lets face it, is illegal beyond a shadow of a doubt), Republican Senator Arlen Specter is coming out strong against it. An excerpt ...

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not adequately justified why the Bush administration failed to seek court approval for domestic surveillance, said the senator in charge of a hearing Monday on the program.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) said Sunday he believes that President Bush violated a 1978 law specifically calling for a secret court to consider and approve such monitoring. The Pennsylvania Republican branded Gonzales' explanations to date as "strained and unrealistic."

The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), predicted that the committee would have to subpoena the administration to obtain internal documents that lay out the legal basis for the program. Justice Department officials have declined, citing in part the confidential nature of legal communications.

Specter said he would have his committee consider such a step if the attorney general does not go beyond his prior statements and prepared testimony that the spying is legal, necessary and narrowly defined to fight terrorists.

[...]

"I believe that contention is very strained and unrealistic," Specter said. If the FISA law was inadequate, he said, Bush should have asked Congress to change it rather than ignore it. "The authorization for the use of force doesn't say anything about electronic surveillance."

Now there is that good 'ole fashioned small government conservatism I used to think was midly annoying! Good for Specter. Good for any other Repbulican who joins him. That is the right thing to do. I am glad to see a member of the Senate who will stand up for the power vested in that body by the constitution. These mad power grabs by the Bush boys are simply unjustified.

Read the whole story.

Friday, February 03, 2006

Connecting Bush's dots

The U.K.'s finest newspaper, The Guardian, is reporting on a piping hot, fresh from the British classified memos file that clearly shows Bush and Blair had made up their minds about attacking Iraq months before the invasion began.

The article, written by intrepid reporter Richard Norton-Taylor, offers insight into how the two men plotted the invasion. Here are a couple excerpts taken from transcripts of a conversation the men had in the White House on January 31, 2003 ...
President Bush to Tony Blair: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach"

Bush: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."

Blair: "A second Security Council Resolution resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected and international cover, including with the Arabs."

Bush: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''

Blair responds that he is: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

But 2003 seems like ancient history. Right? Let's refresh our memories as to what we were told by our president during the time between this Jan. 31, 2003 conversation he had with Blair and the actual invasion of Iraq ...

March 6, 2003:
"I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully."

March 8, 2006:
"We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."

March 17, 2003:
"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it."
Connect the dots, people. The feeling in this country that Bush is a liar does not require some major leap of logic. Indeed, to continue trying to polish what is left of the man's credibility seems pointless in the face of such somber facts.

Connecting Cheney's dots

Okay, let's talk about our Vice President. In the buildup to the Iraq war, the administration made claims that Iraq was seeking "Yellowcake" uranium in Africa. Mmhmm. Now that we have a little more information on that claim, let's connect Cheney's dots, shall we?

In today's National Journal, writer Murray Waas reveals the details of a memo given to Cheney and ex-Chief of Staff Scooter Libby by none other than the head of the CIA, George Tenent. The memo's date? June 17, 2003.
CIA analysts wrote then-CIA Director George Tenet in a highly classified memo on June 17, 2003, “We no longer believe there is sufficient” credible information to “conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” The memo was titled: “In Response to Your Questions for Our Current Assessment and Additional Details on Iraq’s Alleged Pursuits of Uranium From Abroad.”
Flash forward, America, to September 14, 2003. The place: MSNBC studios. The show: Meet the Press. The journalist: Tim Russert. The guest: Dick Cheney. The lie:
"I guess the intriguing thing, Tim, on the whole thing, this question of whether or not the Iraqis were trying to acquire uranium in Africa. …. I don’t know what the truth is on the ground with respect to that."
But to suggest that Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush are bald-face liars is "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city." Never mind that FOUR MONTH GAP between the time he got the memo and was asked about it on television. And he's supposedly being honest?

Uh-huh.

Remember the "Special Prosecutor" who was working on the Valerie Plame case? You know, the one where Cheney/Rove/Libby, et. al. revealed the secret identity of a CIA agent to discredit her diplomat husband after he filed reports that were contrary to what the administration was claiming about Iraq? You remember him. He talked a lot about baseball, and then a guy in crutches was frog-marched out of the VP's office.

I think his name was Patrick Fitzgerald.

Yeah, that's the guy. Not so long ago, a document attributed to his office surfaced, and it kick-started more rumors about his investigation. Now, speculate as you will, but when you hear things like this coming out of a Special Prosecutor, there are only a few conclusions one could draw.
We have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.”
Snap. But what ever could it mean?

Iran - 10 YEARS away from having THE BOMB

Let's be reasonable here. Take a step back. If you follow the news, you've probably seen a lot of frightening headlines for stories about the administration's statements about Iran, as well as Iran's statements about Israel. But you may have missed this one, very important fact.

Winston Churchill once said, "Jaw, jaw ... Not war, war."

We should not be so quick to rush into a conflict with such wide-reaching reprocussions. Please realize that a war with Iran would be an all-out war that completely envelops the middle-east. Our government would initiate mandatory military conscription. The fighting would last for years and years. Hundreds of thousands would die.

With that in mind, consider this report. Then tell me, if you can, when the last time was that U.S. Intelligence findings contrasted with the Administration's statements.
===============================

Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; Page A01

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table."

The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking.

The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, three U.S. sources said. Still, a senior intelligence official familiar with the findings said that "it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."

At no time in the past three years has the White House attributed its assertions about Iran to U.S. intelligence, as it did about Iraq in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion. Instead, it has pointed to years of Iranian concealment and questioned why a country with as much oil as Iran would require a large-scale nuclear energy program.
Read the rest ...

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Protest Bush Friday, Feb. 3 in Dallas!

America's favorite ruler will be in Dallas Friday, Feb. 3, 2006. He will be giving a speech, and I have been notified of a protest group organized to rally in whatever "free speech zone" the secret service sets up. I am unable to attend, but you should. Here are the details ...
=====================================================

WHO: Young Democrats of Texas, College Students and Parents


WHAT: Rally to STOP THE GOP RAID ON STUDENT AID!!!

WHEN: TOMORROW, February 3rd at 11:00 AM

WHERE: Townview Magnet School Campus, 1201 East 8th Street, Dallas

NOTE: We will meet close to the school campus in a parking lot located at the end of North Denley Drive.

------------------

Below is info from the Democrats, just to show where, when, etc.. More info from the Greens. The Dems want no signs. That means bring your tents, crosses, signs, banners and anything else you can! We have to make sure the antiwar message is loud and clear and that Bush knows the name of Camp Casey Dallas!


Tomorrow, Friday, February 3, 2006, we need your help. There will be a protest in Dallas to bring attention to the Bush Administration's failed policies regarding higher education financial aid. Please join young democrats from all over North Texas for this important event. Ask off of work, take a long lunch, skip class, this is that important.

Here are all the details:

YOUNG DEMOCRATS TO PRESIDENT BUSH:
STOP THE RAID ON STUDENT AID!!!
AX THE GOP STUDENT TAX

In a post-State of the Union tour, President Bush will visit a local Dallas school on Friday only to deliver more of his same old lofty education rhetoric, but the truth is Texas students just can?t get a break. Under Republican rule in Washington and Austin, working parents trying to send their kids to college get nothing but a double blow.

While the President travels the country selling empty promises, Tom DeLay and Republicans in the House of Representatives voted this week to gut $11.9 billion in student aid programs, the largest cut in our nation?s history. But this GOP tax on student borrowers is not the first attack on Texas students, who are still reeling from the outrageous increases in college tuition under Rick Perry and Tom Craddick.

Join fellow Democrats TOMORROW to call on President Bush to stand by his words and veto any legislation that robs students of the opportunity to obtain higher education and achieve the American dream. Tell President Bush to stop the raid on student aid!!!

WHO: Young Democrats of Texas, College Students and Parents

WHAT: Rally to STOP THE GOP RAID ON STUDENT AID!!!

WHEN: TOMORROW, February 3rd at 11:00 AM

WHERE: Townview Magnet School Campus, 1201 East 8th Street, Dallas

NOTE: We will meet close to the school campus in a parking lot located at the end of North Denley Drive.

Directions from I-35 East: Exit 8th Street (..426b-just south of downtown Dallas). Turn east on 8th Street. Turn left on North Denley, which dead ends into the parking lot.

Questions??? Call Dallas County Democratic Party at 214-821-8331

President - Tarrant County Young Democrats

Donate to TCYD: Please click here to contribute




Tomorrow, there will be a protest at the school. the Dems are meeting across the school where they believe that the secret service will allow them to park.

They are meeting at 11am. We need Greens to come out in full force tomorrow wearing Green t shirts and carrying Green signs. The Democrats don't want any signs other than ones about education (which is fine for them) but we need to have a STRONG anti war message at the protest. Code Pink will be there with anti war signs as well. We should support Code Pink in Dallas and encourage more women to participate in this process.

will this interfere with Camp Casey tomorrow or will Camp Casey be moved to Oak Cliff this week?

--
Joy Vidheecharoen-Glatz
Volunteer, Green Party of Dallas County
http://www.dallasgreens.net
Treasurer, Green Party of Texas
http://www.txgreens.org

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Take it from Sheehan

Dear Friends,

As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight.

I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.

There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened:

This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh, Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2245 Dead. How many more?

After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the undergroud tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.

My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said: "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."

I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2245, huh? I just got back from there."

I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shrit that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.

There have already been many wild stories out there.

I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred of protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people.

Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.

Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too.

Love and peace soon,
Cindy

State of Reality

The Webster Retort
By Stephen Webster
Investigative Reporter
Publication date: Feb. 3, 2006

State of Reality

Will somebody pinch me, please? I think I've died and gone to dystopia. As I write this one day after this year's State of the Union speech, I find myself having a difficult time wrapping my mind around the full gravity of what just happened.

Around 8:15 p.m., Cindy Sheehan was walking into the House Gallery and taking a seat. She was attending the State of the Union speech as the guest of Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey of California. She had been identified at security checkpoints and allowed to enter. She was not trying to disturb the event.

At 8:30 p.m., Sheehan unzipped her jacket, revealing her t-shirt. The very guard who helped her to her seat spotted the shirt and yelled, "Protestor!" The clothing in question read "2,245 Dead. How many more?" She was not asked to cover her shirt or zip up her jacket. Nobody said a word. An officer named Mike Weight grabbed Sheehan by the wrists and literally dragged her out of the room and up a flight of stairs. He gave little merit to the fact that he had physically hurt her in the process.

"Well, you were protesting!" he asserted, as though it were some sort of justification. "I did not wear it to be disruptive," she contended. In reality, if she really wanted to ruffle the president's feathers, she would have unzipped the jacket during the speech, with the eyes of the media upon her. She did not.

As our entire House of Representatives, Senate and Supreme Court watched, the mother of a boy killed in Iraq was hauled out of their hall of power, shamed and wondering what crime she had committed. For once, she was not participating in any knowing contravention of the law. She came to observe the president's speech as a guest of a Democratic Congresswoman; not to use it as another stop in her campaign of civil disobedience.

Just moments before his most important speech this year, Bush's political opponent was arrested and charged with "unlawful conduct," a misdemeanor that carries a penalty of one year. Her crime was wearing a t-shirt and sitting quietly in a room as a guest of a member of our federal government. Not a single member of Congress or the court said a word. They just sat and watched this grieving mother being treated as a criminal for the offense of wearing a shirt with a message that the president does not wish to acknowledge.

The makeup of the Supreme Court had been altered six hours earlier with the narrow approval of Samuel Alito. A man who argued that it is within the law for a police officer to use lethal force against a fleeing, unarmed suspect makes it past the most corrupt Congress in our history, and the administration's first move is to arrest a political opponent for exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution? A man who argued that it is okay to strip search an adolescent girl because her father is a drug dealer gets approved to the highest court in the land, and our government's first action is to brazenly circumvent the First Amendment in his presence as he smiles and applauds?

In 1971, the former Supreme Court ruled that a man who was arrested for wearing a shirt that read "F*** the Draft" was within his rights. The case was Cohen vs. The State of California, and Mr. Cohen won. How short a time after the court's makeup changed that our government once again encroached upon the rights of its citizens.

Pardon me for saying so, but that arrest sets the tone for the remainder of this year much more loudly than the thunderous applause offered upon Bush's entry. Let us hope it does not serve as precedent for what is left of this man's time in the White House, be it one more year or neigh-three.

I am utterly disgusted and honestly a little afraid. No government likes criticism, least of all the Bush administration. They go to great lengths to choke off dissent by implementing enormous security perimeters at "events of special national significance" that, if breached by protestors, allow for felony charges and the use of violence against peaceful dissenters. They erect "free speech zones" with chain-link fence and barbed wire, often miles away from the people's antagonist. And they shout down those who would stand up for their values, branding them to be "Terrorist Sympathizers" and "America Haters." Now the full assault has begun with a renewed campaign of shock and awe.

Am I an "America Hater" if I wear a button that reads, "Support the Troops: Bring them home"? Am I in league with Osama bin Laden if I refuse to surrender my rights for a false sense of security? The answer is simply NO! I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it any more! How can we continue to justify this theft in the name of security?

During the speech, the Republican-nominated members of the court stood and applauded Bush at all those key moments. Their newly outnumbered associates abstained from such open partisanship. The arrest of Cindy Sheehan just before the president's address is nothing short of a statement of intent, guarded by this man's powers as the new retainer of the judiciary. Any member of our society who values their inherent rights as an American should be concerned.

What is the State of our Union? One party now controls the House, Senate, Executive and Judiciary. That party's leader has admitted to ordering the state to spy on its citizens, claiming that the laws which prohibit such actions are simply too old to follow. I openly wonder what other laws he considers to be outdated. To him, FISA is irrelevant. So too must be Posse Comitatus, the barrier which prohibits use of the military to enforce his will in our streets. What about the Civil Rights Act? Or presidential term limits? The will of this man and his party penetrates and dominates every sector of our government without check or balance, yet so many of us continue doing nothing.

It is time to stand up again, America. As we did when Johnson and Nixon encroached upon our freedoms, so too must we stand and protect our birthright against this new foe who pretends to be our protector. To let such transgressions pass without our peaceful resistance is a sin tantamount to those of this tyrant.

Stephen Webster is an Investigative Reporter and Syndicated Columnist with The News Connection, a Staff Columnist with George W. Bushs hometown weekly The Lone Star Iconoclast, and a former Contributor to The Dallas Morning News Science & Technology section. For more of Websters musings, visit GonzoMuckraker.BlogSpot.com.

The Weird, Turned Pro.

Created by The Gonzo Muckraker
Based in Dallas, Texas
More about the author.
----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------
Stories I'm Digging today ...