Bush wasn't elected; Davis was
My girlfriend made a good point regarding the ludicrous claim that Californian's are stuck with current governor Gray Davis. She rightly points out that Californian's are not stuck with Davis because he was elected once and then just reelected a few months ago. As opposed to Bush, who we have truly all been stuck with, since he was never elected at all; he stole the presidency.
30 September 2003
Compare Bush administration's quotes before war on Iraq and al-Qaeda to those after:
Before invasion of Iraq:
Bush lies trying to link al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein
After invasion:
Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks
Wolfowitz Lets Slip that Iraq Was Not Involved in 9/11; No Ties to Al-Qaeda
The evidence is clear; Bush and the other crooks in the White House, and the Pentagon knowingly lied to the American people. He and his adminstration brought disgrace upon the United States of America and they need to be removed from power now!
Before invasion of Iraq:
Bush lies trying to link al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein
After invasion:
Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks
Wolfowitz Lets Slip that Iraq Was Not Involved in 9/11; No Ties to Al-Qaeda
The evidence is clear; Bush and the other crooks in the White House, and the Pentagon knowingly lied to the American people. He and his adminstration brought disgrace upon the United States of America and they need to be removed from power now!
Hero grandmother from British Columbia held in contempt of court
A grandmother in Canada is being criminalized for doing what I consider to be absolutely legitimate and highly commendable: she is trying to protect old growth trees in British Columbia. This woman is not a criminal, but a hero whose behavior we should all emulate.
Elderly protester found guilty
A grandmother in Canada is being criminalized for doing what I consider to be absolutely legitimate and highly commendable: she is trying to protect old growth trees in British Columbia. This woman is not a criminal, but a hero whose behavior we should all emulate.
Elderly protester found guilty
Fight the Recall of California governor Gray Davis!
Read an article entitled "The dirt on Schwarzenegger" here.
More info:
The Top Ten Conservative Idiots
Arnold's True Colors
Read an article entitled "The dirt on Schwarzenegger" here.
More info:
The Top Ten Conservative Idiots
Arnold's True Colors
More of Bush's buddies profiting from the war in Iraq
Washington Insiders' New Firm Consults on Contracts in Iraq
Washington Insiders' New Firm Consults on Contracts in Iraq
No one should have their voting rights taken away, that goes for former and current prisoners
This is especially true since the justice system is often anything but just, disproportionately imprisoning minorities and the poor while white collar criminals who rob millions of dollars from Americans remain free.
In addition many people are in prison for non-violent drug related crimes. No one and I mean no one should be in jail because of marijuana or because they are addicted to drugs.
Study: States End Ex-Felons Voting Bans
This is especially true since the justice system is often anything but just, disproportionately imprisoning minorities and the poor while white collar criminals who rob millions of dollars from Americans remain free.
In addition many people are in prison for non-violent drug related crimes. No one and I mean no one should be in jail because of marijuana or because they are addicted to drugs.
Study: States End Ex-Felons Voting Bans
Update: Schwarzenegger even refuses a one-on-one debate with Davis on Larry King
Todd Harris, a spokesman for the Schwarzenegger campaign, used twisted logic in saying the Davis camp desire for a debate takes a page from the "desperate candidate's handbook."
Hardly, the more rational among us would conclude that a candidate who does everything possible to avoid participating in debate, an indispensable exercise of the democratic process, for fear of being outted as incompetent and wholly unelectable, is on page one of the desperate candidates handbook.
Schwarzenegger Declines Debate Invite
Comic debate was best anti-recall ad Gray Davis could have imagined
Schwarzenegger afraid to debate Davis
Its obvious that Arnold likes picking on women much more than facing a challenge by the incumbent governor Gray Davis. His campaign released a statement refusing to take Davis up on his challenge to a debate "right here, right now."
He is a tough guy when given the questions and spurting out silly one liners and platitudes that truly reveal his ignorance and utter lack of qualification for the highest office in the state of California; however, when given the chance to confront the stitting democratically elected governor of a state which has the sixth largest economy in the world, and the largest population in America, he retreats from the challenge.
This is because Davis would destroy him in a debate. The Schwarzenegger camp knows this. His handlers figure if he can keep his mouth shut for just awhile longer and stick to the prepackaged script they have given him full of trite one liners (the nonsense he built his career on) he can squeek out a win in a society where the dumbest actors get elected and the smartest ones get ignored.
Schwarzenegger is constantly attacking Davis, when Davis isn't right in front of his face; however, in a forum of direct confrontation, like a debate, Schwarzenegger's banal, stupid and baseless attacks would be volleyed right back leaving Scwarzenegger looking like what he is: an untalented actor and one of the worst choices for governor ever presented to the voters of California.
Schwarzenegger Declines Debate Challenge
Barbarian at the Gate
Todd Harris, a spokesman for the Schwarzenegger campaign, used twisted logic in saying the Davis camp desire for a debate takes a page from the "desperate candidate's handbook."
Hardly, the more rational among us would conclude that a candidate who does everything possible to avoid participating in debate, an indispensable exercise of the democratic process, for fear of being outted as incompetent and wholly unelectable, is on page one of the desperate candidates handbook.
Schwarzenegger Declines Debate Invite
Comic debate was best anti-recall ad Gray Davis could have imagined
Schwarzenegger afraid to debate Davis
Its obvious that Arnold likes picking on women much more than facing a challenge by the incumbent governor Gray Davis. His campaign released a statement refusing to take Davis up on his challenge to a debate "right here, right now."
He is a tough guy when given the questions and spurting out silly one liners and platitudes that truly reveal his ignorance and utter lack of qualification for the highest office in the state of California; however, when given the chance to confront the stitting democratically elected governor of a state which has the sixth largest economy in the world, and the largest population in America, he retreats from the challenge.
This is because Davis would destroy him in a debate. The Schwarzenegger camp knows this. His handlers figure if he can keep his mouth shut for just awhile longer and stick to the prepackaged script they have given him full of trite one liners (the nonsense he built his career on) he can squeek out a win in a society where the dumbest actors get elected and the smartest ones get ignored.
Schwarzenegger is constantly attacking Davis, when Davis isn't right in front of his face; however, in a forum of direct confrontation, like a debate, Schwarzenegger's banal, stupid and baseless attacks would be volleyed right back leaving Scwarzenegger looking like what he is: an untalented actor and one of the worst choices for governor ever presented to the voters of California.
Schwarzenegger Declines Debate Challenge
Barbarian at the Gate
28 September 2003
U.S. Atrocities and War Crimes: Revisiting the "Highway of Death" where tens of thousands of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers were massacred by U.S. forces following the 1991 Gulf War
The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"
The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"
27 September 2003
The world says no to the U.S. occupation of Iraq
Protests erupted today around the world in a call to end the criminal occupation of the nation of Iraq by the United States and its allies.
London drew the biggest protests, estimated at 20,000 people, with all attending voicing vehement opposition to the occupation. The occupation wasn't the only target as the crowd voiced disgust with the policies of Prime Minister Tony Blair. New polls just released, indicate that fifty percent of the British population want Blair to resign immediately for his involvement in the invasion of Iraq and the events leading to the suicide of David Kelly.
Calling him a war criminal and carrying signs that read "Bliar," it is clear that Blair's political career has been severely, probably irreparably, damaged by his insistence on going to war with Iraq even though the majority of Britons were extremely against any invasion.
Marchers Worldwide Call for Iraq Pullout
Protests erupted today around the world in a call to end the criminal occupation of the nation of Iraq by the United States and its allies.
London drew the biggest protests, estimated at 20,000 people, with all attending voicing vehement opposition to the occupation. The occupation wasn't the only target as the crowd voiced disgust with the policies of Prime Minister Tony Blair. New polls just released, indicate that fifty percent of the British population want Blair to resign immediately for his involvement in the invasion of Iraq and the events leading to the suicide of David Kelly.
Calling him a war criminal and carrying signs that read "Bliar," it is clear that Blair's political career has been severely, probably irreparably, damaged by his insistence on going to war with Iraq even though the majority of Britons were extremely against any invasion.
Marchers Worldwide Call for Iraq Pullout
25 September 2003
Huffington terminates the Terminator!
One of my favorite jibes in the California recall gubernatorial debate last night came from independent candidate Arianna Huffington, she said, "Republicans always talk about sexual morality, but not business morality."
I could not agree more with that statement. In fact, it is a premise for many of my arguments and posts right here on this blog. Moreover, I have actually been working on a blog dedicated entirely to that very point.
Of course, in the United States of America, the land of Enron, TYCO, Global Crossing and countless other lying, and stealing bastards, who put profit above all else, people won't get to hear Huffington's or similar points of view very often in the mainstream media; however, the BBC quoted Huffington's jab at the Republicans right at the beginning of their article on the debate. That is because, by no means perfect, the business climate in Europe isn't as wrought with corruption and recklessness as the U.S. economic system.
The corporate media won't give you so called "progressive" points of view, even those that would seem to be a given (that businesses should act in the public interest or at least not act against it), because such awareness might cause people to question the profit system itself, and the its fragile power structure, ultimately proving a threat to its actual existence.
The idea of actually putting morality into the process of business decision making is something that American corporations would never tolerate. The very suggestion that such an ideal should dictate how business is conducted galvanizes the most threatened members of the oligarchy (corporations and their political and media allies) to employ every effort to suppress it.
Don't believe me? I challenge readers to submit to me any article from the U.S. mainstream press (national, state, city or local) that covered the debate and quoted the candidates, but didn't leave out Huffington's contention that Republicans only care about sexual, and not business morality. If you find any I'll post them.
Quote mentioned:
BBC
LA Times
Not mentioned:
Washington Post
Seattle Post Intelligencer
Seattle Times
New York Times
The San Francisco Examiner
The Boston Globe
USA Today
San Francisco Chronicle
The Chicago Tribune
The Miami Herald
The Minneapolis Star Tribune
Transcript of gubernatorial recall debate
One of my favorite jibes in the California recall gubernatorial debate last night came from independent candidate Arianna Huffington, she said, "Republicans always talk about sexual morality, but not business morality."
I could not agree more with that statement. In fact, it is a premise for many of my arguments and posts right here on this blog. Moreover, I have actually been working on a blog dedicated entirely to that very point.
Of course, in the United States of America, the land of Enron, TYCO, Global Crossing and countless other lying, and stealing bastards, who put profit above all else, people won't get to hear Huffington's or similar points of view very often in the mainstream media; however, the BBC quoted Huffington's jab at the Republicans right at the beginning of their article on the debate. That is because, by no means perfect, the business climate in Europe isn't as wrought with corruption and recklessness as the U.S. economic system.
The corporate media won't give you so called "progressive" points of view, even those that would seem to be a given (that businesses should act in the public interest or at least not act against it), because such awareness might cause people to question the profit system itself, and the its fragile power structure, ultimately proving a threat to its actual existence.
The idea of actually putting morality into the process of business decision making is something that American corporations would never tolerate. The very suggestion that such an ideal should dictate how business is conducted galvanizes the most threatened members of the oligarchy (corporations and their political and media allies) to employ every effort to suppress it.
Don't believe me? I challenge readers to submit to me any article from the U.S. mainstream press (national, state, city or local) that covered the debate and quoted the candidates, but didn't leave out Huffington's contention that Republicans only care about sexual, and not business morality. If you find any I'll post them.
Quote mentioned:
BBC
LA Times
Not mentioned:
Washington Post
Seattle Post Intelligencer
Seattle Times
New York Times
The San Francisco Examiner
The Boston Globe
USA Today
San Francisco Chronicle
The Chicago Tribune
The Miami Herald
The Minneapolis Star Tribune
Transcript of gubernatorial recall debate
24 September 2003
Kennedy says Iraq war was a "fraud" that was "made up in Texas"
In Senate, Kennedy Fuels Sharp Debate
In Senate, Kennedy Fuels Sharp Debate
23 September 2003
News World International (NWI) reports that Iraq has turned into a "vortex of violence"
A story on NWI, the Canadian twenty-four news organization, today says that the U.S. and its slim coalition are fighting a "guerilla war against mix and match enemies."
In fact, Bush himself has said the violence that the U.S. confronts daily is at least in part due "terrorists who have come to Iraq." I stated this fact in my first post ever on this blog (scroll down to bottom to read it).
The report states that it has been predominantly Saudis that have been coming in in the last few months. That is highly ironic due to the fact that we supposedly fought the war to prevent future terrorism (a boldface lie), but the war actually has greatly increased the likelihood of more terrorism from Arabs (who constituted the majority of the 9-11 hijackers no matter how much the Bush administration tried to imply otherwise) who have specifically gone to Iraq because Saddam's regime has fallen and utter chaos exists there now.
The myth propagated by the Bush administration and its cronies in the government and media establishment that the world is safer now that Saddam is gone, is a boldface lie. A power vacuum now exists in Iraq and Islamic terrorists from all around are filling it.
The violence also comes from guerilla cells formed from Saddam's 400,000 man army (who are now humiliated and unemployed, a deadly mix). These former soldiers are working separately from the Islamic militants.
Two radical Islamic groups, Hezbollah and Ansar al Islam, are also arriving there says Michael Eisenstat of the D.C. Institute for Near East Policy.
The report maintains that the reality is that the longer the fighting goes on in Iraq the more organized the resistance will get. It also points out that collapsed states, like Iraq, often have warring factions that fight themselves; we see this going on in Iraq right now. Such a situation would represent a worst case scenario where interfactional violence could spread like wildfire.
A legitimate Iraqi government (where the Iraqi people elect their leaders) must be created that, says the report, is one of the only ways to keep peace.
The news story says in closing that "if you believe in democracy this needs to happen."
A story on NWI, the Canadian twenty-four news organization, today says that the U.S. and its slim coalition are fighting a "guerilla war against mix and match enemies."
In fact, Bush himself has said the violence that the U.S. confronts daily is at least in part due "terrorists who have come to Iraq." I stated this fact in my first post ever on this blog (scroll down to bottom to read it).
The report states that it has been predominantly Saudis that have been coming in in the last few months. That is highly ironic due to the fact that we supposedly fought the war to prevent future terrorism (a boldface lie), but the war actually has greatly increased the likelihood of more terrorism from Arabs (who constituted the majority of the 9-11 hijackers no matter how much the Bush administration tried to imply otherwise) who have specifically gone to Iraq because Saddam's regime has fallen and utter chaos exists there now.
The myth propagated by the Bush administration and its cronies in the government and media establishment that the world is safer now that Saddam is gone, is a boldface lie. A power vacuum now exists in Iraq and Islamic terrorists from all around are filling it.
The violence also comes from guerilla cells formed from Saddam's 400,000 man army (who are now humiliated and unemployed, a deadly mix). These former soldiers are working separately from the Islamic militants.
Two radical Islamic groups, Hezbollah and Ansar al Islam, are also arriving there says Michael Eisenstat of the D.C. Institute for Near East Policy.
The report maintains that the reality is that the longer the fighting goes on in Iraq the more organized the resistance will get. It also points out that collapsed states, like Iraq, often have warring factions that fight themselves; we see this going on in Iraq right now. Such a situation would represent a worst case scenario where interfactional violence could spread like wildfire.
A legitimate Iraqi government (where the Iraqi people elect their leaders) must be created that, says the report, is one of the only ways to keep peace.
The news story says in closing that "if you believe in democracy this needs to happen."
22 September 2003
Let the raping of the of the Iraqi economy begin; just don't touch the oil that's for us only
Iraq is open for business! Paul Bremer, unelected ruler, oops I mean civilian administrator of Iraq, has just announced that foreign investment will now be permitted in Iraq.
What this means, essentially, is that huge multinational corporations (most of which will probably be U.S. firms) will be given the opportunity to invest in any part of the economy except for oil.
On its face, it would seem that this would bring help to rebuild Iraq (destroyed because of 2 wars and twelve years of sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands and wrecked the whole country); however, its really about enriching corporations with money from American taxpayers.
National Public Radio (NPR) reported, on Sept. 22, that:
More info:
America Puts Iraq Up for Sale
Iraq is open for business! Paul Bremer, unelected ruler, oops I mean civilian administrator of Iraq, has just announced that foreign investment will now be permitted in Iraq.
What this means, essentially, is that huge multinational corporations (most of which will probably be U.S. firms) will be given the opportunity to invest in any part of the economy except for oil.
On its face, it would seem that this would bring help to rebuild Iraq (destroyed because of 2 wars and twelve years of sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands and wrecked the whole country); however, its really about enriching corporations with money from American taxpayers.
National Public Radio (NPR) reported, on Sept. 22, that:
- the problem in Iraq is not lack of foreign investment, but lack of security
- attempts in short order to privatize would bring terrible corruption and no help for the Iraqi people
- privatization should be accomplished over years not months (reverse of wht should happen with political control)
More info:
America Puts Iraq Up for Sale
19 September 2003
Washing Away the Truth: Hurricanes and what gets lost in the whirlwind of the mainstream media
The mainstream media reported diligently on every minutiae of Hurricane Isabel, but they seem utterly unconcerned with the daily attacks on our societies' poor, sick, struggling and homeless or on the destruction of our forests, wetlands, air, and water. Such attacks are much more threatening to people and the environment than the rare visit of a swirling weather system; however, the corporate media is unwilling to address these issues, rather they opt for the all too convenient sound bite.
To be sure, there is often tragic loss of life in these storms; however, many more lives are lost from the lack of health care, housing, and sufficient income or from the toxic pollutants we drink, eat, and breath every day. If they wrote and broadcast stories on those issues, they would expose most of their advertisers and the media's own corporate owners as the real threat to us all.
The media uses hyperbole in most of their reporting, exaggerating the threat posed by events that are rare and uncommon (natural disasters, school shootings, violent crime, terrorist attacks, etc.) and minimizing or totally ignoring actual threats, like those to our health and the environment.
As Michael Moore puts forth in his movie, Bowling for Columbine, the result of this media fascination with violence and danger that doesn't match the real life statistics, is to create a climate of fear.
In a scene from his movie, a news crew shows up on a corner in Los Angeles to film something merely because a police chopper was hovering over the area. The problem, Moore finds out, is that they don't know what exactly is going on (they say some guy may have had a gun or there was a "near" drowning). Apparently, the drama of a chopper on the scene is all the news director needed for a story.
Michael Moore asks the news crews cameraman why they don't do a story on "how... you can't see the Hollywood hills because of the pollution." The cameraman agrees, laughing as if to say its a good idea, but the network won't go for it; indeed they probably won't.
Moore then finds a cop and he asks him basically the same question. This time asking if there is anyone that the cop can arrest because the Hollywood sign can't be seen due to the pollution. The cop responds tersely, "absolutely not," Moore then asks "why not... why is that" the officer says nothing as he starts to walk away.
It is clear that addressing the pollution issue would take true grit; the kind that the officer evidently doesn't have. The officer's reluctance to even respond to Moore's point, that serious crimes are being perpetrated on us all as the police spend time on low or non-existent threats, is telling, since, for the officer, acknowledging that polluters are killing us, albeit, more slowly than a gunshot, but deadly nonetheless, would require the officer to question what in fact his duties are and whether he is willing to do what it really takes to defend the public.
He, like most of his law enforcement peers, might no longer be able to rely on the stereotypical crime profiles and unfair treatment they give to the poor and minority communities. They might ultimately have to face the realization that most threatening and dangerous crimes actually don't occur in these communities, but rather in the boardrooms of major corporations. So the officer walks away, just as many others do, looking for the criminals that the media, the wealthy, and the powerful tell us should be locked up.
Fear keeps us: buying guns, spending billions to build bombs, stocking up on supplies for natural disasters, supporting U.S. Imperialism disguised as a "war on terror, " and most importantly for the media and its advertisers; it keeps us watching the news.
The mainstream media reported diligently on every minutiae of Hurricane Isabel, but they seem utterly unconcerned with the daily attacks on our societies' poor, sick, struggling and homeless or on the destruction of our forests, wetlands, air, and water. Such attacks are much more threatening to people and the environment than the rare visit of a swirling weather system; however, the corporate media is unwilling to address these issues, rather they opt for the all too convenient sound bite.
To be sure, there is often tragic loss of life in these storms; however, many more lives are lost from the lack of health care, housing, and sufficient income or from the toxic pollutants we drink, eat, and breath every day. If they wrote and broadcast stories on those issues, they would expose most of their advertisers and the media's own corporate owners as the real threat to us all.
The media uses hyperbole in most of their reporting, exaggerating the threat posed by events that are rare and uncommon (natural disasters, school shootings, violent crime, terrorist attacks, etc.) and minimizing or totally ignoring actual threats, like those to our health and the environment.
As Michael Moore puts forth in his movie, Bowling for Columbine, the result of this media fascination with violence and danger that doesn't match the real life statistics, is to create a climate of fear.
In a scene from his movie, a news crew shows up on a corner in Los Angeles to film something merely because a police chopper was hovering over the area. The problem, Moore finds out, is that they don't know what exactly is going on (they say some guy may have had a gun or there was a "near" drowning). Apparently, the drama of a chopper on the scene is all the news director needed for a story.
Michael Moore asks the news crews cameraman why they don't do a story on "how... you can't see the Hollywood hills because of the pollution." The cameraman agrees, laughing as if to say its a good idea, but the network won't go for it; indeed they probably won't.
Moore then finds a cop and he asks him basically the same question. This time asking if there is anyone that the cop can arrest because the Hollywood sign can't be seen due to the pollution. The cop responds tersely, "absolutely not," Moore then asks "why not... why is that" the officer says nothing as he starts to walk away.
It is clear that addressing the pollution issue would take true grit; the kind that the officer evidently doesn't have. The officer's reluctance to even respond to Moore's point, that serious crimes are being perpetrated on us all as the police spend time on low or non-existent threats, is telling, since, for the officer, acknowledging that polluters are killing us, albeit, more slowly than a gunshot, but deadly nonetheless, would require the officer to question what in fact his duties are and whether he is willing to do what it really takes to defend the public.
He, like most of his law enforcement peers, might no longer be able to rely on the stereotypical crime profiles and unfair treatment they give to the poor and minority communities. They might ultimately have to face the realization that most threatening and dangerous crimes actually don't occur in these communities, but rather in the boardrooms of major corporations. So the officer walks away, just as many others do, looking for the criminals that the media, the wealthy, and the powerful tell us should be locked up.
Fear keeps us: buying guns, spending billions to build bombs, stocking up on supplies for natural disasters, supporting U.S. Imperialism disguised as a "war on terror, " and most importantly for the media and its advertisers; it keeps us watching the news.
While the rest of us suffer the ramifications of a deteriorating economy (job loss, bankruptcies), the total net worth of the 400 richest Americans grew 10% to $955 billion
This is an injustice that must be corrected. There is absolutely no reason why any 400 human beings should have this amount of money.
Their combined net worth is more than the GNP of most entire countries where millions of people live and work.
This fact is a travesty of justice and one of the main reasons why we have terrorism in the world. We are an easy target with our excessive wealth and imperialistic foreign policy which usually supports despots and dictators around the world who brutalize and oppress millions of people.
We are seen as the biggest kid on the block, with a military and economy to prove it. So we are an easy target to the oppressed and destitute of the planet. Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada, caught flak for making a similar argument a couple of years ago after 9-11, probably because it was too close to the truth for many of those in power.
It doesn't help that we also unconditionally support Israel. We rarely, if ever, chide Israel for any of their brutalizing policies against the Palestinians (targeted assassinations, and bulldozing their houses) which we never refer to as terrorism, but is.
Just a couple of days ago at the UN, the United States vetoed a resolution calling on Israel to neither kill nor expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. It would have passed, but for the U.S. veto.
Article: Net Worth of America's Richest Increases
This is an injustice that must be corrected. There is absolutely no reason why any 400 human beings should have this amount of money.
Their combined net worth is more than the GNP of most entire countries where millions of people live and work.
This fact is a travesty of justice and one of the main reasons why we have terrorism in the world. We are an easy target with our excessive wealth and imperialistic foreign policy which usually supports despots and dictators around the world who brutalize and oppress millions of people.
We are seen as the biggest kid on the block, with a military and economy to prove it. So we are an easy target to the oppressed and destitute of the planet. Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada, caught flak for making a similar argument a couple of years ago after 9-11, probably because it was too close to the truth for many of those in power.
It doesn't help that we also unconditionally support Israel. We rarely, if ever, chide Israel for any of their brutalizing policies against the Palestinians (targeted assassinations, and bulldozing their houses) which we never refer to as terrorism, but is.
Just a couple of days ago at the UN, the United States vetoed a resolution calling on Israel to neither kill nor expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. It would have passed, but for the U.S. veto.
Article: Net Worth of America's Richest Increases
18 September 2003
Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to read the report by Robert Fisk of London's Independent on the current conditions in Iraq.
Its titled, "What is Happening Is An Absolute Slaughter Every Night of Iraqi People," and you can read it here.
Its titled, "What is Happening Is An Absolute Slaughter Every Night of Iraqi People," and you can read it here.
Although too little too late, former chief UN weapons Hans Blix thinks any WMDs Saddam may have had were probably destroyed 10 years ago
Blix basically says Iraq war was a fraud.
I wish we saw this kind of candor at the UN security council when Powell made that embarrassing and pathetic attempt to say Saddam had nukes and the like.
Full article:
Blix Attacks 'Spin and Hype' of Iraq Weapon Claims
The facts on the 9th Federal District Circuit Court
The 9th Circuit Court has more actual cases overturned because they hear more cases (11,000 in fact, the largest number of cases in the federal system). Only a tiny amount of the 9th Circuits cases are reviewed by the US Supreme Court; of those 75% are overturned, which is the same rate that the US Supreme Court overturns all the other federal circuit court rulings in the country.
As far as claims that the 9th Circuit is ultra-liberal, it should be known that the pledge of allegiance decision, so lambasted by the right, which said having the phrase "under God" in the pledge was unconstitutional, was actually written by a Republican appointee.
The 9th Circuit Court has more actual cases overturned because they hear more cases (11,000 in fact, the largest number of cases in the federal system). Only a tiny amount of the 9th Circuits cases are reviewed by the US Supreme Court; of those 75% are overturned, which is the same rate that the US Supreme Court overturns all the other federal circuit court rulings in the country.
As far as claims that the 9th Circuit is ultra-liberal, it should be known that the pledge of allegiance decision, so lambasted by the right, which said having the phrase "under God" in the pledge was unconstitutional, was actually written by a Republican appointee.
17 September 2003
CNN's Robert Novak: hypocrite of the day
While I was just watching CNN's Crossfire, I witnessed Robert Novak just call co-host Paul Begala anti-troops because Begala was commenting on a new report that says the Iraqi people no longer see US forces so much as the people who removed Saddam Hussein, but rather as the soldiers bursting into the homes of their wives and daughters.
Compare that statement to what Mr. Novak said a number of weeks ago when soldiers voiced understandable anger and distress with the attacks and deaths that they were experiencing daily. A situation they were put in by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense) and Rice (National Security Advisor). Novak said at the time that American troops should stop complaining and "shut-up" and "do their job." If that's not anti-troops, I don't know what is.
While I was just watching CNN's Crossfire, I witnessed Robert Novak just call co-host Paul Begala anti-troops because Begala was commenting on a new report that says the Iraqi people no longer see US forces so much as the people who removed Saddam Hussein, but rather as the soldiers bursting into the homes of their wives and daughters.
Compare that statement to what Mr. Novak said a number of weeks ago when soldiers voiced understandable anger and distress with the attacks and deaths that they were experiencing daily. A situation they were put in by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense) and Rice (National Security Advisor). Novak said at the time that American troops should stop complaining and "shut-up" and "do their job." If that's not anti-troops, I don't know what is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)