Saturday, October 07, 2006

VP Abdul Mahdi: US Military Part of Problem;
4,000 Iraq police killed in past 2 years

The deaths of two more US Marines were announced on Friday.

Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi said on Friday that the lack of a Status of Forces Agreement is among the main reasons for political gridlock in Iraq. The US military can act as it pleases, he complained. It is one more decision-making center among many. The lack of a SOFA is in fact among the main legal pitfalls in Iraq.

About 4,000 Iraqi police have been killed and more than 8,000 injured over the past two years, the U.S. commander in charge of the police training said Friday.

AP reports drily that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki castigated Iraqi political parties for having militias and demanded that they dissolve them, while he was being guarded by the Badr Corps, the militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of al-Maliki's honored guests. This is like demanding that wine makers agitate for prohibition.

Yahya Barzinji reports on why many observers believe that the Kurds are gradually moving toward independence. He quotes Kurdish leaders denying any such intention.

Richard Engel reports that US troops in Iraq are questioning why they are there and what exactly their mission is. He tells of how they find evidence that some among their colleagues, the Iraqi police, are actually secret death squad members who murdered a Sunni Arab man and tossed his body in the street.

Colin Powell's wife says that Bush used her husband to sell the Iraq War. Too right. And it is impossible to watch a virtually all-white Republican Party install a couple of high-profile African Americans and use them as fall guys with thinking that there is something unsavory and racist about it.

posted by Juan

Taliban Back, Using Iraq-Style Violence
By JIM KRANE

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - A sweating man wanders into a crowd and blows himself up, leaving a dozen bodies lifeless on the street. A few blocks away, a car bomb pulverizes an armored Humvee, killing two U.S. soldiers and 14 civilians. The kind of anonymous insurgent violence that is convulsing Iraq has migrated 1,500 miles east to plague Afghanistan five years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban regime.

The prospect of a second downward spiral - though so far Afghanistan isn't nearly as violent as Iraq - has experts worried that Western militaries don't have an effective strategy for these irregular wars.

"One Iraq is bad enough," said Bruce Hoffman, a counterinsurgency expert at Georgetown University. "Given that our two main theaters of operations aren't going well, one has to question how well the U.S. understands counterinsurgency."

The reborn Taliban acknowledges that it has adopted the suicide bombings, beheadings and remote-controlled bombs of the Iraqi insurgent movement. Nearly 200 civilians have been killed in suicide attacks this year that look all too much like the wave of bombings sweeping Iraq.

"We're getting stronger in every province and in every district and every village," said Qari Mohammed Yusuf Ahmadi, who calls himself the Taliban's spokesman for southern Afghanistan. "We don't have helicopters and jet fighters. But we're giving America and its allies a tough time with roadside bombs, suicide attacks and ambushes. Our Muslim brothers in Iraq are using the same tactics."

Resemblances to Iraq don't stop there. Taliban public relations teams videotape attacks and post them online, an uncharacteristic venture into modern technology for a Muslim fundamentalist group that once banned cameras and computers.

The West's military strategy in Afghanistan also resembles that in Iraq.

Just as critics say Washington did not send enough troops to Iraq before the insurgency took root, analysts fault the U.S. for failing to press its advantage in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003 when the Taliban were all but vanquished.

Meanwhile, Afghan observers say the same harsh U.S. tactics, decried in Iraq for causing civilian casualties, have helped the Taliban recruit new fighters.

But unlike Iraq's insurgents, the Taliban has ready sanctuary and support just outside their battle zone, in the border areas of Pakistan.

"There will be no end to this insurgency until its sanctuaries and external support are addressed," said Christopher Alexander, the deputy head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military estimates about 6,000 Taliban and other insurgent fighters operate in Afghanistan, many from bases in Pakistan. Yusuf Ahmadi - who spoke by satellite phone from an undisclosed location and whose exact ties to the militia's leadership are unclear - put the figure in the tens of thousands.

The Taliban comeback, while focused on the volatile south and east, has begun to hit Kabul. The mountain capital's tree-lined boulevards are now scarred, like the streets of Baghdad, by garlands of razor wire, towering blast walls and impromptu police checkpoints.

There's little indication that Iraqi insurgents are joining the fight in Afghanistan or giving the Taliban direct aid, although a few Arab and Chechen fighters mingle in Taliban ranks.

But even without much personal contact, the Taliban has learned from Iraq's insurgency. Web sites explain the insurgent's art: everything from concealed rocket launchers to roadside bomb-making.

"We're not saying they're getting direct support from Iraq," a U.S. military official in Afghanistan said on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity the information. "They've evolved by adapting their tactics. They've seen the value of the suicide bomber in Iraq. For them, it's a very cheap and effective weapons system."

The U.S. and NATO military response in Afghanistan also has nuanced differences from Iraq. U.S. warplanes drop 10 times more bombs in Afghanistan than they do in Iraq, and a few U.S. and NATO troops live off base in village houses, a strategy rarely attempted in Iraq.

But most of the allied war efforts looks similar. In both places, troops cordon off villages and search homes. They employ billions of dollars in technology - things like signal jammers and mine-clearing vehicles - to find and disarm roadside bombs. They operate from bases nearly identical in appearance, with troops living in tin trailers barricaded by dirt-filled metal baskets.

The Afghan war is still far smaller, occupying just 40,000 allied troops - a quarter of those in Iraq - and suffering a fraction of the casualties. But for individual soldiers serving in mountainous Taliban lands like Zabul province, the dangers feel the same.

"I know Iraq grabs a lot of headlines. But there's still a war going on over here," said Lt. Col. Steve Jarrard, 46, of Johnson City, Tenn., based in the hard-bitten southern town of Qalat. "I really hope we're doing the right thing over here."

Right now, it's too early to tell the result of major U.S. and NATO offensives aimed at crushing the Taliban.

"In three to six months you'll see a noticeable effect," said NATO spokesman Maj. Luke Knittig. "But you're talking two to five years before seeing a defeat of the insurgency" in southern Afghanistan.

---

AP correspondents Noor Khan in Kandahar and Fisnik Abrashi in Kabul contributed to this report.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Top Ten Victory Celebrations by Republicans in Congress


The Republicans in Congress appropriated $20 million for a victory celebration for Iraq and Afghanistan, but couldn't use it in 2006 for obvious reasons.



That item started me thinking of other things that the Republican Party could spend $20 million of the taxpayers' money to celebrate.


10. Stopping weapons of mass destruction programs that aren't even there!

9. "Loose lips sink ships" employee of the year.



8. Richard Bruce Cheney safety in hunting Award!



7. Funding urban renewal in Beirut.



6. World's best interrogators.



5. Tom Delay: Honest Politician of the Year.

4. Jack Abramoff's sacrifice of wealth for principle.

3. The administration'stough love toward New Orleans.



2. The revival of the Afghanistan economy.



1. A new kind of Big Brother program in the Congress just for pages!

Iraq: bombs at "all-time high"; 22 US soldiers killed in past 4 days
by Joe in DC - 10/04/2006 07:18:00 PM

Bush's war in Iraq is a disaster -- and it's getting worse. This is what you get when you stay the course:

U.S. military spokesman Major General William Caldwell said the number of car bombs in Baghdad, both detonated and defused, hit their highest level of the year last week and that bombs reported in general were "also at an all-time high".

U.S. and Iraqi forces have mounted a major military operation in the past two months against militants in Baghdad.

For the second time in two days, four U.S. soldiers were killed in a single incident around Baghdad, this time in what appears to have been a substantial skirmish involving mortars or rockets and gunfire to the northwest. It took the death toll in four days of the month to 15 around Baghdad and 22 in total.

Bush has NO plan for Iraq. The Republicans in Congress have let him get away with that. We have to change the course. We have to change the Congress.

In a CNN poll of 1,014 US adults done Sept. 29-Oct. 2:

39% think Bush is doing a good job as president.

42% will vote for the Republican candidate in November.

53% said that they planned to vote Democrat in November.

57% said the Iraq War has made the US less safe from terrorism

58% said that the Bush administration misled the public on how the war is going

59% said they disapproved of the job Bush is doing as president.

61% said that they oppose the Iraq War

66% said that they disapprove of the way that Bush is handling the Iraq War.

What do you people think, is this possible? I hope not but I do not leave it past these people to pull a stunt like this. This article is from Wonkette another bolgger.......Enjoy and give me some thoughts!!!

Here’s a tale that makes Mark Foley seem absolutely harmless in comparison: U.S. warships are headed for the coast of Iran, just in time for a late-October war. Maybe even a nuclear war. A nuclear war started by the White House. You know, to make sure Iran doesn’t develop dangerous nuclear weapons that could be brazenly used against some country or another.
Today, the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group leaves port in Norfolk for the Persian Gulf. The group includes the USS Anzio, the guided-missile destroyers USS Ramage and USS Mason and the attack sub USS Newport News. Time and The Nation are among the mainstream mags saying this is the beginning of the war. We’ll tell you what some less-mainstream sources say, after the jump.
The White House is run by such psychopaths that rational people are arguing about the likelihood of an American “first strike” on Iran. But it’s not an idea that has exactly been embraced by Americans who aren’t real thrilled about the other two wars America is currently losing.Just the rumor of the Eisenhower group’s deployment was enough to bring the protestors to Norfolk. And you’ll notice GOP campaigns are utterly silent about Iran — although we’re sure Conrad Burns or George Allen have managed to slip in a few racial slurs in that direction, as a matter of course. Asked Time magazine last month:
What’s going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world’s oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO’s request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed—but until now largely theoretical—prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.The Navy denies everything but the facts of the deployment, which are kind of hard to deny when 6,500 sailors are being sent to the Persian Gulf six weeks before the election. Says the Navy Times, “Recent news articles speculating about a naval strike on Iran are being greeted with skepticism by the Navy.” Well, sure. Tough to deploy if a few thousand sailors don’t show up for work today!
The carrier group will arrive in the Persian Gulf on October 21. The Ike is allegedly relieving the USS Enterprise — the nuclear-powered carrier. But as long as the Enterprise is in the Arabian Sea or Persian Gulf, it’s ready to take part in whatever happens. Nuclear subs are supposedly deploying from San Diego to the Gulf, too. And there are some 160,000 U.S. troops on Iran’s eastern and western borders.
If this is Rove’s promised October Surprise, it’s not going to be a pretty one. Starting a war against another oil country that hasn’t done anything to us may dazzle Americans for a few days, but it’s just going to leave them depressed. And the White House has a little problem over at the Pentagon: Senior commanders have no interest in this latest crazy plot. Unless Iran started the war ….
This is where our Crazy Theorists come in. For the past week or two, there’s been talk on investor boards and other conspiracy forums of various Sinister Plots. One version has Iran striking the Enterprise with one of its Squall super torpedoes. Nuclear incident! Like Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin combined!
Another version has the U.S. fleet blockading the Strait of Hormuz, which means Iran can’t get its oil out through the Gulf. That would either make Iran give up its nuclear ambitions or piss off Ahmadinejad so much that he launches a few missiles at the American ships.
Too crazy or about right for these people?
T

September 29, 2006

Trent Lott: "They All Look The Same To Me."

Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, who a few years ago had lamented that we could have avoided "all these problems" if Senator Strom Thurmond, a segregationist candidate, had been elected president of the United States, is now baffled by the Shia- Sunni conflict in Iraq.

" President Bush barely mentioned the war in Iraq when he met with Republican senators behind closed doors in the Capitol Thursday morning and was not asked about the course of the war, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said.

"No, none of that," Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. "You're the only ones who obsess on that. We don't and the real people out in the real world don't for the most part."

Lott went on to say he has difficulty understanding the motivations behind the violence in Iraq.

"It's hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what's wrong with these people," he said. "Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."

Hmm .. interesting. I guess you should only hate and kill those who DON'T look like you.

And we wonder why Americans are ill-informed
by John in DC - 9/26/2006 12:58:00 PM

Check out Newsweek's cover story this week. Actually, Newsweek has a different cover for each region of the world they publish in. If you go to the Newsweek International Edition home page, you can see the listings of the various covers for this week. Check them out and see if the one for the US doesn't stand out a little bit.

Perhaps the headline should be "Losing America."

Hat tip, Rising Hegemon.

  

Dumb as We Wanna Be

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

São Paulo, Brazil

I asked Dr. José Goldemberg, secretary for the environment for São Paulo State and a pioneer of Brazil’s ethanol industry, the obvious question: Is the fact that the U.S. has imposed a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff to prevent Americans from importing sugar ethanol from Brazil “just stupid or really stupid.”

Thanks to pressure from Midwest farmers and agribusinesses, who want to protect the U.S. corn ethanol industry from competition from Brazilian sugar ethanol, we have imposed a stiff tariff to keep it out. We do this even though Brazilian sugar ethanol provides eight times the energy of the fossil fuel used to make it, while American corn ethanol provides only 1.3 times the energy of the fossil fuel used to make it. We do this even though sugar ethanol reduces greenhouses gases more than corn ethanol. And we do this even though sugar cane ethanol can easily be grown in poor tropical countries in Africa or the Caribbean, and could actually help alleviate their poverty.

Yes, you read all this right. We tax imported sugar ethanol, which could finance our poor friends, but we don’t tax imported crude oil, which definitely finances our rich enemies. We’d rather power anti-Americans with our energy purchases than promote antipoverty.

“It’s really stupid,” answered Dr. Goldemberg.

If I seem upset about this, I am. Development and environmental experts have long searched for environmentally sustainable ways to alleviate rural poverty — especially for people who live in places like Brazil, where there is a constant temptation to log the Amazon. Sure, ecotourism and rain forest soap are nice, but they never really scale. As a result, rural people in Brazil are always tempted go back to logging or farming sensitive areas.

Ethanol from sugar cane could be a scalable, sustainable alternative — if we are smart and get rid of silly tariffs, and if Brazil is smart and starts thinking right now about how to expand its sugar cane biofuel industry without harming the environment.

The good news is that sugar cane doesn’t require irrigation and can’t grow in much of the Amazon, because it is too wet. So if the Brazilian sugar industry does realize its plan to grow from 15 million to 25 million acres over the next few years, it need not threaten the Amazon.

However, sugar cane farms are located mostly in south-central Brazil, around São Paulo, and along the northeast coast, on land that was carved out of drier areas of the Atlantic rain forest, which has more different species of plants and animals per acre than the Amazon. Less than 7 percent of the total Atlantic rain forest remains — thanks to sugar, coffee, orange plantations and cattle grazing.

I flew in a helicopter over the region near São Paulo, and what I saw was not pretty: mansions being carved from forested hillsides near the city, rivers that have silted because of logging right down to the banks, and wide swaths of forest that have been cleared and will never return.

“It makes you weep,” said Gustavo Fonseca, my traveling companion, a Brazilian and the executive vice president of Conservation International. “What I see here is a totally human dominated system in which most of the biodiversity is gone.”

As demand for sugar ethanol rises — and that is a good thing for Brazil and the developing world, said Fonseca, “we have to make sure that the expansion is done in a planned way.”

Over the past five years, the Amazon has lost 7,700 square miles a year, most of it for cattle grazing, soybean farming and palm oil. A similar expansion for sugar ethanol could destroy the cerrado, the Brazilian savannah, another incredibly species-rich area, and the best place in Brazil to grow more sugar.

A proposal is floating around the Brazilian government for a major expansion of the sugar industry, far beyond even the industry’s plans. No wonder environmental activists are holding a conference in Germany this fall about the impact of biofuels. I could see some groups one day calling for an ethanol boycott — à la genetically modified foods — if they feel biofuels are raping the environment.

We have the tools to resolve these conflicts. We can map the lands that need protection for their biodiversity or the environmental benefits they provide rural communities. But sugar farmers, governments and environmentalists need to sit down early — like now — to identify those lands and commit the money needed to protect them. Otherwise, we will have a fight over every acre, and sugar ethanol will never realize its potential. That would be really, really stupid.

Ok here are two things......

This first one is a great speach by Obama, WOW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyW7X4isOEo&eurl=


This second one is report on what actually goes on in Iraq as far as casulaties. Pretty depressing but real news in better then no news or americanized mass media.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IBO840395.htm

I recently received a comment about me not posting anything about my current affiars here in Montana. I am sorry I have not put more personal data online but just have not got around to it. Grad school is a completly different atmosphere and kepps you very busy. I went to and finsished Texas State, I think with general ease, and got a eduaction (defenitly in Geography) based more on the technical side of geography. Now, into Grad school things have changed complety and I am sure for the better. There is alot more emphasis on reading and wriitng, I am sure for preperation for a thesis. In addition, at least in my Geograohical thought course, on the philosphy and history behind geography. One thing of interest of the many I will l let you know about.
The on going confirtation between religion and science has been going since the middle ages. TO call this a war would be misleading. The idea, which I think I agree with, came to mind about religion pushing both sides to prove each other wornd and in turn fueling the science side of the field to research even more. What I mean is if religion did not exist, even though I am a atheist at least as far as modern religion is consered, sceince would not have as much to try to prove. It is hard for any person to argue the fact that there is no "God", because we are yet to explore even most of the universe. What did create all, I do not think think it was some guy in the clouds who said to build mulitple million dollor churches and involve political issues with religion, but I think its hard to not belive in some aspect of a higher being.
Besides that, Missoula is a great town and as I have been told its "15 minutes from Montana" as I think Austin is 15 minutes from Texas. That meaning that in a state were there is considerable conservative populations its a mecca of liberalizism that goes along with libral thinking and the oddities of the liberal population. Such as trustafarians, vagabonds, and other starange people. I can bike, hike, and flyfish all within a short distance of this area. This makes it a dream area.....and I forgot the skiing which I have not done yet!
We live in a world that is forever changing and its a situation in which mush of us fell we do not know what we should do. I think many people disagree with what is going on currently in the US governement and do not know what to do. I to fall into this category. I think it comes to a point were, yes voting counts, but generally it is just for the better of two evivls. Coorperations seem to conotrol the US and many other developed countries and leave plent of the poor behind. What we do, I do not know but hopefully I or someone will think or something.
As far as a thesis, I am considering.....and hopefully doing a project on water resources in Spain. Spain is a country dominated by huge drought problems in the southern half of the country and has the highest number of dams in Europe with 600. (Most built durring Franco) I want to explore this issue and see what city, regional and country planners are doing to understand this water scarcity problem and how they plan to elievate the issues at hand.
Hopefully this is somewhat of a summery of my thoughts and experiences in the last month. Sorry if there are typos but this all comes to mind and I write it down and publish it.

Peace, Love, Courage

TY

Dear Friends and Relatives:
>> >
>> >I have the distinguished honor of being on the
>> >committee to raise $5,000,000 for a monument to George
>> >W. Bush. We originally wanted to put him on Mt.
>> >Rushmore but discovered there's not enough room for
>> >two more faces.
>> >
>> >We then decided to erect a statue of George in the
>> >Washington, D.C. Hall Of Fame. We were in a quandary
>> >as to where the statue should be placed. It was not
>> >proper to place it beside the statue of
>>George
>> >Washington, who never told a lie, or beside Richard
>> >Nixon, who never told the truth, since George W. could
>> >never tell the difference.
>> >
>> >We finally decided to place it beside Christopher
>> >Columbus, the greatest Republican of them all. He left
>> >not knowing where he was going and when he got there
>> >he did not know where he was. He returned not knowing
>> >where he had been, and did it all on someone else's
>> >money.
>> >
>> >Thank you,
>> >
>> >George W. Bush Monument Committee
>> >
>> >P.S.The Committee has raised $1.35 so far.
>>

This is a great site that liast headlines from other countries papers and TV stations. TO make things even better it gives you the full article or TV clip. Worth checking out and seeing what
the rest of the world thinks about us and the events at hand.


http://www.watchingamerica.com/index.shtml

President Bush’s Reality

Published: September 12, 2006

Last night, President Bush once again urged Americans to take terrorism seriously — a warning that hardly seems necessary. One aspect of that terrible day five years ago that seems immune to politicization or trivialization is the dread of another attack. When Mr. Bush warns that Al Qaeda means what it says, that there are Islamist fanatics around the world who wish us harm and that the next assault could be even worse than the last, he does not need to press the argument.

After that, paths diverge. Mr. Bush has been marking the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 with a series of speeches about terrorism that culminated with his televised address last night. He has described a world where Iraq is a young but hopeful democracy with a “unity government” that represents its diverse population. Al Qaeda-trained terrorists who are terrified by “the sight of an old man pulling the election lever” are trying to stop the march of progress. The United States and its friends are holding firm in a battle that will decide whether freedom or terror will rule the 21st century.

If that were actual reality, the president’s call to “put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us” would be inspiring, instead of frustrating and depressing.

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror until the Bush administration decided to invade it. The president now admits that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 (although he claimed last night that the invasion was necessary because Iraq posed a “risk”). But he has failed to offer the country a new, realistic reason for being there.

Establishing democracy at the heart of the Middle East no longer qualifies, desirable as that would be. Where Mr. Bush sees an infant secular Iraqi government, most of the world sees a collection of ethnic and religious factional leaders, armed with private militias, presiding over growing strife between Shiites and Sunnis. Warning that American withdrawal would “embolden” the enemy is far from an argument as long as there is constant evidence that American presence is creating a fearful backlash throughout the Muslim world that empowers the fanatics far more than it frightens them.

Fending off the chaos that would almost certainly come with civil war would be a reason to stay the course, although it does not inspire the full-throated rhetoric about freedom that Mr. Bush offered last night. But the nation needs to hear a workable plan to stabilize a fractured, disintegrating country and end the violence. If such a strategy exists, it seems unlikely that Mr. Bush could see it through the filter of his fantasies.

It’s hard to figure out how to build consensus when the men in charge embrace a series of myths. Vice President Dick Cheney suggested last weekend that the White House is even more delusional than Mr. Bush’s rhetoric suggests. The vice president volunteered to NBC’s Tim Russert that not only was the Iraq invasion the right thing to do, “if we had it to do over again, we’d do exactly the same thing.”

It is a breathtaking thought. If we could return to Sept. 12, 2001, knowing all we have seen since, Mr. Cheney and the president would march right out and “do exactly the same thing” all over again. It will be hard to hear the phrase “lessons of Sept. 11” again without contemplating that statement.

GEORGE CARLIN ON RELIGION

In the Bullshit Department, a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman. 'Cause I gotta tell you the truth, folks. When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend. But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to fuck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayer-book can come along and fuck up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way.

And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was. In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!

Here is a link to video done by a BBC reporter
on how the Bush administration actually helped
Bin Laden become more organized and really exist
in the way we think of him now.
Very interesting and a great and belivable theory
with Bushy and company in office.
The video is from YouTube vis brasscheck.com
Enjoy:

http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/91111.html

The War President

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
-George W., August 2004

• Number of Americans killed in Bush's Iraq war as of August 2006: 2577


• What Bush press flack Tony Snow said the day the total number of American dead reached 2,500: "It's a number"


• Number of Americans killed since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003: 2,438


• Number of Americans wounded (a vague term that includes such horrors as brain damage, limb blasted off, eyes blown out, psyche shattered, etc.) in Bush's war:
• Official count: 18,777
• Independent count: up to 48,000
• Estimated number of Iraqi civilians (men, women, and children) killed in Bush's war since Saddam Hussein was ousted: 38,960


• For Iraqis, the bloodiest month of the war so far: June 2006 (more than 100 civilians killed per day)


• Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit's advice to Iraqis who see TV reports of innocent civilians being killed by occupying troops: "Change the channel."


• Percent of Iraqis who want American troops to leave: 82


• Stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq since Bush committed Americans to war in 2003 on the basis that Saddam had and was about to use WMDs: 0


• Number of nations in the world: 192


• Number that joined Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" (COW) to invade Iraq: 48
  (The list includes such military powers as Angola, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Romania, Solomon Islands, and Uganda.)


• Number of COW nations that actually sent any troops to Iraq: 39
  (Of these, 32 sent fewer than 1,000 troops. Many sent no fighting units, deploying only engineers, trainers, humanitarian units, and other noncombat personnel.)

• Number of the 39 COW nations contributing troops that have since withdrawn them: 17
  (An additional 7 have announced plans to withdraw all or part of their contingents this year.)


• Number of COW troops in Iraq: 150,000


• Number of these that are U.S. troops: 139,000


• Number of White House officials and cabinet members who have any of their immediate family in Bush's war: 0

Follow the Money

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
-"Howling Paul" Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, in testimony to Congress, March 2003

• The official White House claim before the invasion of what the war and occupation would cost U.S. taxpayers: $50 billion


• As of July 2006, the total amount appropriated by Congress for Bush's ongoing war and occupation: $295,634,921,248


• Current Pentagon spending per month in Iraq: $8 billion (or $185,185.19 per minute)


• Assuming all troops return home by 2010, the projected "real costs" for the war: More than $1 trillion
  (includes veterans' pay and medical costs, interest on the billions Bush has borrowed to pay for his war, etc.)

Bonus Stat!

• Annual salary of Stuart Baker, hired by the Bushites to be the White House "Director for Lessons Learned": $106,641


• Number of lessons that Bush appears to have learned: 0

The Imperial Presidency

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
George W., August, 2002.

Signing Statements

When signing a particular congressional act into law, a few presidents have occasionally issued a "signing statement" to clarify their understanding of what Congress intended. These have not had the force of law and have been used discreetly in the past.

Very quietly, however, Bush has radically increased both the number and reach of these statements, essentially asserting that the president can arbitrarily decide which laws he will obey.

• Number of signing statements issued by Bush as of July 2006: more than 800
  (This is more than the combined total of all 42 previous presidents.)

A few examples of congressionally passed laws he has effectively annulled through these extralegal signing statements:
• a ban against torture of prisoners by the U.S. military


• a requirement that the FBI periodically report to Congress on how it is using the Patriot Act to search our homes and secretly seize people's private papers


• a ban against storage in military databases of intelligence about Americans that was obtained illegally


• a directive for the executive branch to transmit scientific information to Congress "uncensored and without delay" when requested


• Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that Congress alone has the power "to make all laws": Article 1, Section 8


• Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed": Article 2, Section 3


• Name of the young lawyer in the Reagan administration who wrote a 1986 strategy memo on how to pervert the use of signing statements in order to concentrate more power in the executive branch, as Bush is now doing: Samuel Alito, named to the U.S. Supreme Court by Bush this year

National Security Letters

These are secret executive writs that the infamous 2001 Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to issue to public libraries, internet firms, banks, and others. Upon receiving an NSL, the institution or firm is required to turn over any private records it holds on you, me, or whomever the agents have chosen to search.

Who authorizes the FBI to issue these secret writs? The FBI itself.

• Surely the agents have to get a search warrant, a grand jury subpoena, or a court's approval? No
• But to issue an NSL, an agent must show probable cause that the person being searched has committed some crime, right? No


• Well, don't officials have to inform citizens that their records are being seized so they can defend themselves or protest? No


• Number of NSLs issued by various FBI offices last year alone: 9,254

NSA Eavesdropping

In 2001, Bush issued a secret order for the National Security Agency to begin vacuuming up massive numbers of telephone and internet exchanges by U.S. citizens, illegally seizing this material without any judicial approval or informing Congress, as required by law.

• Number of Americans who have had their phone and internet communications taken by NSA: Just about everyone!
  (NSA is tapping into the entire database of long-distance calls and internet messages run through AT&T and probably other companies as well.)


• In May of this year, the Justice Department abruptly halted an internal investigation that was trying to uncover the name of the top officials who had authorized NSA's warrantless, unconstitutional program. Who killed this probe, which was requested by Congress? George W himself! (He directed NSA simply to refuse security clearances for the department's legal investigators.)


• What happened to NSA Director Michael Hayden, who was the key architect of Bush's illegal eavesdropping program and the one who would've formally denied clearances to Justice Department investigators? In May, Bush promoted him to head the CIA.


• This past May, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales warned that journalists who report on NSA's spy program could be prosecuted under the antiquated Espionage Act of 1917.
• Times in U.S. history this act has been used to go after the press: 0


• Margin by which the U.S. House in 1917 voted down an amendment to make the Espionage Act apply to journalists: 184-144

Interesting Fact

The New York Times reported this June that Bush was running another spy program. This one was snooping through international banking records, including millions of bank transactions done by innocent Americans. George reacted angrily to the exposure, branding the Times report "disgraceful" and declaring that revelation of his spy program "does great harm to the United States." The White House and its right-wing acolytes promptly launched a "Hate-the-Times" political campaign.

Name the guy who was the first to reveal that such a bank-spying program was in the works: George W. Bush! At a September 2001 press conference, he announced that he'd just signed an executive order to monitor all international bank transactions.

Watch Lists

From the Bushites' ill-fated Total Information Awareness program (meant to monitor all of our computerized transactions) to the robust efforts by Rumsfeld's Pentagon to barge into the domestic surveillance game, America under Bush has fast become "The Watched Society."

• Number of data-mining programs being run secretly on us by the federal government: Nearly 200 separate programs at 52 agencies


• Number of "local activity reports" submitted to the Pentagon in 2004 under the "Threat and Local Observation Notice" program (TALON), which directed military officers throughout our country to keep an eye on suspicious activities by civilians: More than 5,000
  (They included such "threats" as peace demonstrators and 10 activists protesting outside Halliburton's headquarters.)


• Number of official "watch lists" maintained by the feds: More than a dozen run by 9 different agencies


• Number of Americans on the Transportation Security Administration's "No- Fly" list: That's a secret.
  (TSA concedes that it's in the tens of thousands. In 2005 alone, some 30,000 people called TSA to complain that their names were mistakenly on the list.)


• Most famous citizen who is on the No-Fly list and has been repeatedly pulled aside by TSA for additional screenings at airports: Sen. Ted Kennedy
• How can you get your name removed from TSA list? That's a secret.

Name That Guy!

In 1966, a young Republican congressman stood against his party's elders to cosponsor the original Freedom of Information Act, valiantly declaring that public records "are public property." He said that FOIA "will make it considerably more difficult for secrecy-minded bureaucrats to decide arbitrarily that the people should be denied access to information on the conduct of government."

Who was that virtuous lawmaker? Donald Rumsfeld!

Only eight years later, Gerald Ford's chief of staff strongly urged him to veto the continuation of FOIA. Who was that dastardly staffer? Donald Rumsfeld!

Who is now one of the chief "secrecy-minded bureaucrats" who routinely violates OIA's principles? Right, him again!

Regime of Secrecy

"Democracies die behind closed doors."
-- Appeals court judge Damon Keith, ruling in a 2002 case that the Bushites cannot hold deportation hearings in secret

• Increase in the number of government documents marked "secret" between 2001 and 2004: 81 percent
• Number of government documents stamped "secret" in 2001: 8.6 million


• Number of government documents stamped "secret" in 2004: 15.6 million (a new record)


• Cost to taxpayers of classifying and securing documents in 2004: $7.2 billion ($460 per document)


• Number of previously declassified documents that the CIA tried to reclassify as "secret" under a 2001 secret agreement with the National Archives, even though many had already been published and some date back to the Korean War: 25,315
• Number of different "official designations" the government now has to classify nonsecret information so it still is kept out of the public's reach: Between 50 and 60
  (They include such stamps as CBU: Controlled But Unclassified, SBU: Sensitive But Unclassified, and LOU: Limited Official Use Only.)


• The only vice-president in history who has claimed that he, like the president, has the inherent authority to mark "secret" on any document he chooses: "Buckshot" Cheney


• Number of documents Cheney has classified: That's a secret.
  (He claims he does not have to report this to anyone -- not even the president.)


• Of the 7,045 advisory committee meetings held by the Bushites in 2004, percentage that were completely closed to the public, contrary to the clear intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act: 64 percent (a new record)


• Number of times from 1953 to1975 (the peak of the Cold War) that presidents invoked the "state secrets" privilege, which grants them unilateral power in extraordinary instances literally to shut down court cases on the grounds they could reveal secrets that the president doesn't want disclosed: 4


• Number of times the same privilege was invoked between 2001 and 2006: At least 24


• Under Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno issued an official memo instructing agencies to release as much information as possible to the public. In October 2001, AG John Ashcroft issued a memo canceling Reno's approach, expressly instructing agencies to look for reasons to deny the public access to information and pledging to support the denials if the agencies were sued.


• 2005 FOIA requests still awaiting a response at year's end: 31 percent
  (a one-third increase over the 2004 backlog)


• Median waiting time to get an answer on FOIA request from Bush's justice department: 863 days

Halliburton

"Halliburton is a unique kind of company."
-- Dick Cheney, September 2003

• Total value of contracts given to Halliburton for work in the Bush-Cheney "War on Terror" since 2001: More than $15 billion


• Amount that Halliburton pays to the Third World laborers it imports into Iraq to do the work in its dining facilities, laundries, etc.: $6 per 12-hour day (50 cents an hour)


• Amount that Halliburton bills us taxpayers for each of these workers: $50 a day


• Amount that Halliburton bills U.S. taxpayers for:
• A case of sodas: $45


• Washing a bag of laundry: $100
• Halliburton's campaign contributions in Bush-Cheney election years:
• In 2000: $285,252 (96 percent to Republicans)
• In 2004: $145,500 (89 percent to Republicans)
  Plus $365,065 from members of its board of directors (99 percent to Republicans)
• Increase in Halliburton's profits since Bush-Cheney took office in 2000: 379 percent


• Halliburton's 2005 profit: $1.1 billion
  (highest in the corporation's 86-year history

"Since leaving Halliburton to become George Bush's vice-president, I've severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."
Former CEO Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, September 2003

• Annual payments that Cheney has received from Halliburton since he's been vice-president:
  • 2001: $205,298
  • 2002: $162,392
  • 2003: $178,437
  • 2004: $194,852
  • 2005: $211,465
• Cash bonus paid to Cheney by Halliburton just before he took office: $1.4 million
• Retirement package he was given in 2000 after only 5 years as CEO: $20 million
• Number of times in the past two years that Republicans have killed Sen. Byron Dorgan's amendment to set up a Truman-style committee on war profiteering to investigate Halliburton: 3
• Naughty word Cheney used during a Senate photo session in 2004 to assail Sen. Patrick Leahy, who had criticized Cheney's ongoing ties to Halliburton: "Go #@! percent yourself.

Jim Hightower is the author of "Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush" (Viking Press). He publishes the monthly Hightower Lowdown.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/30/keith-olbermann-delivers-one-hell-of-a-commentary-on-rumsfeld/

Keith Olbermann Delivers One Hell Of a Commentary on Rumsfeld

By: Jamie Holly on Wednesday, August 30th, 2006 at 6:22 PM - PDT

Keith had some very choice words about Rumsfeld’s "fascism" comments tonight. Watch it, save it and share it.

Video - WMV Video - QT

Olbermann delivered this commentary with fire and passion while highlighting how Rumsfeld’s comments echoes other times in our world’s history when anyone who questioned the administration was coined as a traitor, unpatriotic, communist or any other colorful term. Luckily we pulled out of those times and we will pull out of these times.

Remember - Rumsfeld did not just call the Democrats out yesterday, he called out a majority of this country. This wasn’t only a partisan attack, but more so an attack against the majority of Americans.

Rep. John Murtha Bio

09.01.2006

A 1917 History Lesson (79 comments )

READ MORE: Iraq, George W. Bush

I find it hypocritical and ironic that Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, in their latest speeches to spin the war in Iraq, both commented that "many still have not learned history lessons," as they drew inflammatory parallels between Nazism and today's war in Iraq designed only to provoke unreasonable fear in the hearts of Americans.

Clearly it was the ignoring of history that got President Bush and his ideological policymakers into the quagmire that now exists in Iraq. As history dictated, it was absolutely foolish to believe that by occupying Iraq, the United States would transform the country into a beacon of American style democratic ideals. The British failed in its occupation attempts during the early 1900s. You only have to press rewind to hear the now haunting yet familiar words of a British Commander in Baghdad in 1917 say, "Our armies do not come in to your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." After a decade of fighting with the population they had forcibly "liberated," the British were finally expelled from what is today Iraq by a population who resented foreign occupation and control.

President George Herbert Walker Bush was obviously more astute than his son when it came to the learning of History lessons. During the first Gulf War he rejected the urging of many to march into Baghdad, fully understanding the complexities and pitfalls of such an act. President GW Bush should have spent a little more time under the tutelage of his much more insightful father.

This was a comment to the above speech:

Problem is, for most Americans, "history" is limited to last year's reality TV shows.

And to DUHbya, "history," like everything else in the world, refers to DUHbya.

Historians already overwhelmingly consider DUHbya a failed president and one of our worse leaders in history. If an historian or two manages to get on a reality TV show, the American people may start to realize it, too.

By: dreadneck on September 01, 2006 at 02:45pm
Flag: [abusive]

Even if they were not students of history, one viewing of Lawrence of Arabia could have told them that!

By: ScottCandage on September 01, 2006 at 02:45pm
Flag: [abusive]

Germany & Nazi's controlled much of Europe militarily. The Nazi's had a vast military. Compare this to today's Islamic nations & current insurgents, whose military could not defeat Russia, China, India, Britain or any of the other powerful militaries. To make Iraq or Iran a threat to our , or Western Europe's vast military is insane. Soviet Union lost as a empire, because it went bankrupt financially & morally. That is how we may lose.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."

The whole Islamic Fascism propaganda ploy is totally asinine. Only those lobotomized Bush supporters who grunt their admiration for the charlatans will be duped. No logical arguments need be made to counter the obvious oxy moronic, non sequitur of the phrase.

It is interesting to apply the phrase Christo Fascism to the Bush Administration. The elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism and anti-liberalism abound in this junta. Given the anarchy they have brought to Iraq and their dealings with the Communist Chinese these two aspects are excluded. Thus the statements made by the Bush Administration are again diametrically opposed to reality.