Thoughts and stories from the veiw point of an eccentric and eratic orbit.
Gustav Klimt - Golfische (Detail), 1901-1902 (Oil on canvas). Also known as "To my critics". Currrently in the Slothurn private collection. One of my favorite works of art by one of my favorite painters. Period. 
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 10:28:00 PM
http://harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html
This is an intresting article I found this morning..Thought I would post it here...Enjoy
The Case for Impeachment
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006. An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine. By Lewis H. Lapham.
Sources
A country is not only what it does—it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates. —Kurt Tucholsky
HARPER'S MAGAZINE PRESENTS
IS THERE A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT?
A PUBLIC FORUM FEATURING:
Lewis H. Lapham, editor of Harper's Magazine
Rep. John J. Conyers (D., Mich.), ranking member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee
Michael Ratner, president, Center for Constitutional Rights
Elizabeth Holtzman, member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during Watergate
John Dean, White House Counsel to President Nixon and author of Worse Than Watergate
Moderated by Sam Seder, host of "The Majority Report" on Air America Radio
Thursday, March 2, 8:00 p.m.
Town Hall 123 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10063
$10
Tickets are available at The Town Hall box office or through Ticketmaster
On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press—nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right. The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.
“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.
A reason with which it was hard to argue but one that didn't account for the congressman's impatience. Why not wait for a showing of supportive public opinion, delay the motion to impeach until after next November's elections? Assuming that further investigation of the President's addiction to the uses of domestic espionage finds him nullifying the Fourth Amendment rights of a large number of his fellow Americans, the Democrats possibly could come up with enough votes, their own and a quorum of disenchanted Republicans, to send the man home to Texas. Conyers said:
“I don't think enough people know how much damage this administration can do to their civil liberties in a very short time. What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news.”
Which turned out to be the purpose of his House Resolution 635—not a high-minded tilting at windmills but the production of a report, 182 pages, 1,022 footnotes, assembled by Conyers's staff during the six months prior to its presentation to Congress, that describes the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq as the perpetration of a crime against the American people. It is a fair description. Drawing on evidence furnished over the last four years by a sizable crowd of credible witnesses—government officials both extant and former, journalists, military officers, politicians, diplomats domestic and foreign—the authors of the report find a conspiracy to commit fraud, the administration talking out of all sides of its lying mouth, secretly planning a frivolous and unnecessary war while at the same time pretending in its public statements that nothing was further from the truth.[1] The result has proved tragic, but on reading through the report's corroborating testimony I sometimes could counter its inducements to mute rage with the thought that if the would-be lords of the flies weren't in the business of killing people, they would be seen as a troupe of off-Broadway comedians in a third-rate theater of the absurd. Entitled “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War,” the Conyers report examines the administration's chronic abuse of power from more angles than can be explored within the compass of a single essay. The nature of the administration's criminal DNA and modus operandi, however, shows up in a usefully robust specimen of its characteristic dishonesty.
* * *
That President George W. Bush comes to power with the intention of invading Iraq is a fact not open to dispute. Pleased with the image of himself as a military hero, and having spoken, more than once, about seeking revenge on Saddam Hussein for the tyrant's alleged attempt to “kill my Dad,” he appoints to high office in his administration a cadre of warrior intellectuals, chief among them Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, known to be eager for the glories of imperial conquest.[2] At the first meeting of the new National Security Council on January 30, 2001, most of the people in the room discuss the possibility of preemptive blitzkrieg against Baghdad.[3] In March the Pentagon circulates a document entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts”; the supporting maps indicate the properties of interest to various European governments and American corporations. Six months later, early in the afternoon of September 11, the smoke still rising from the Pentagon's western facade, Secretary Rumsfeld tells his staff to fetch intelligence briefings (the “best info fast...go massive; sweep it all up; things related and not”) that will justify an attack on Iraq. By chance the next day in the White House basement, Richard A. Clarke, national coordinator for security and counterterrorism, encounters President Bush, who tells him to “see if Saddam did this.” Nine days later, at a private dinner upstairs in the White House, the President informs his guest, the British prime minister, Tony Blair, that “when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.”
By November 13, 2001, the Taliban have been rousted out of Kabul in Afghanistan, but our intelligence agencies have yet to discover proofs of Saddam Hussein's acquaintance with Al Qaeda.[4] President Bush isn't convinced. On November 21, at the end of a National Security Council meeting, he says to Secretary Rumsfeld, “What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?...I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.”
The Conyers report doesn't return to the President's focus on Iraq until March 2002, when it finds him peering into the office of Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor, to say, “Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out.” At a Senate Republican Policy lunch that same month on Capitol Hill, Vice President Dick Cheney informs the assembled company that it is no longer a question of if the United States will attack Iraq, it's only a question of when. The vice president doesn't bring up the question of why, the answer to which is a work in progress. By now the administration knows, or at least has reason to know, that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, that Iraq doesn't possess weapons of mass destruction sufficiently ominous to warrant concern, that the regime destined to be changed poses no imminent threat, certainly not to the United States, probably not to any country defended by more than four batteries of light artillery. Such at least is the conclusion of the British intelligence agencies that can find no credible evidence to support the theory of Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda or international terrorism; “even the best survey of WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile and CW/BW weapons fronts...” A series of notes and memoranda passing back and forth between the British Cabinet Office in London and its correspondents in Washington during the spring and summer of 2002 address the problem of inventing a pretext for a war so fondly desired by the Bush Administration that Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's MI-6, finds the interested parties in Washington fixing “the intelligence and the facts...around the policy.” The American enthusiasm for regime change, “undimmed” in the mind of Condoleezza Rice, presents complications.
Although Blair has told Bush, probably in the autumn of 2001, that Britain will join the American military putsch in Iraq, he needs “legal justification” for the maneuver—something noble and inspiring to say to Parliament and the British public. No justification “currently exists.” Neither Britain nor the United States is being attacked by Iraq, which eliminates the excuse of self-defense; nor is the Iraqi government currently sponsoring a program of genocide. Which leaves as the only option the “wrong-footing” of Saddam. If under the auspices of the United Nations he can be presented with an ultimatum requiring him to show that Iraq possesses weapons that don't exist, his refusal to comply can be taken as proof that he does, in fact, possess such weapons.[5]
Over the next few months, while the British government continues to look for ways to “wrong-foot” Saddam and suborn the U.N., various operatives loyal to Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld bend to the task of fixing the facts, distributing alms to dubious Iraqi informants in return for map coordinates of Saddam's monstrous weapons, proofs of stored poisons, of mobile chemical laboratories, of unmanned vehicles capable of bringing missiles to Jerusalem.[6]
By early August the Bush Administration has sufficient confidence in its doomsday story to sell it to the American public. Instructed to come up with awesome text and shocking images, the White House Iraq Group hits upon the phrase “mushroom cloud” and prepares a White Paper describing the “grave and gathering danger” posed by Iraq's nuclear arsenal.[7] The objective is three-fold—to magnify the fear of Saddam Hussein, to present President Bush as the Christian savior of the American people, a man of conscience who never in life would lead the country into an unjust war, and to provide a platform of star-spangled patriotism for Republican candidates in the November congressional elections.[8]
* * *
The Conyers report doesn't lack for further instances of the administration's misconduct, all of them noted in the press over the last three years—misuse of government funds, violation of the Geneva Conventions, holding without trial and subjecting to torture individuals arbitrarily designated as “enemy combatants,” etc.—but conspiracy to commit fraud would seem reason enough to warrant the President's impeachment. Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal—known to be armed and shown to be dangerous. Under the three-strike rule available to the courts in California, judges sentence people to life in jail for having stolen from Wal-Mart a set of golf clubs or a child's tricycle. Who then calls strikes on President Bush, and how many more does he get before being sent down on waivers to one of the Texas Prison Leagues?
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 12:30:00 PM
“Your calls are important to us. For quality control and training purposes, the rest of your life will be monitored.”
While we were all distracted by the antics of Cheney, the tale of Scooter and the Shooter, bigtime conservatives tried to sweep this whole warrantless wiretapping thing under a rug of complications. First they claimed it's a matter of the president's prerogative. "He wants to bug somebody. He bugs them. That's what a commander-in-chief does."
Then they applied a legal paint job. "Congress said he could when they authorized his use of force against terrorism." Then they hammered it down with the big gun. The golden oldie. Their game-saving Hail Mary. National security. "If you disagree with listening in on al Qaida, you're endangering the troops and giving the terrorists a signed blank check of approval."
I keep hearing the argument that this is not a black and white issue, that it is our lives and freedom at stake and that this is a very complicated/complex issue. It's not complicated or complex at all. He broke the law. Peed on the Constitution. Flipped off the Founding Fathers. The kicker is that he didn’t have to break the law to accomplish what I think he was trying to do. I am not an expert on Constitutional law but a little research goes a long way. All he had to do was notify the FISA court within three days of when he started eavesdropping. In previous trips to the court, buttloads of wiretaps were okayed and almost none turned down. I read in The Washington Post that the numbers were something like 18,000 approved and 5 refused. WOW! Eighteen thousand out of 18,005. Not a bad return. I am not a base ball guy but I think that a .999 batting average is pretty impressive.
I don't know why he didn't go to the court. Maybe he worried they wouldn't buy these specific warrants. Maybe he stretched the definition of terrorist to include Michael Moore's dog walker. Maybe he suspects David Gregory has a mole in the Justice Department. Or maybe he just really believes he is above the law. Prehapes he is as dumb as he comes off as. I know he claims during wartime to possess special powers. Special powers: I love that. He can't even pronounce “nuclear” correctly and yet he has special powers. What X-Ray vision? The power to veto with a single bound?. I don't want a president with special powers; I want a president to uphold the laws he swore to protect even if I disagree with his administrations platform.I constantly hear humorous comparisons to Mad King George III (Remember him from your American history class?), I have even mad Mad George jokes myself however in reality George Bush is no where near as fascinating as the English king he so often is compared to. If it were for Georges madness and the name thing no comparison could be mad. The real King George was actually not that bad of a head of state when he wasn’t busy being insane. George W is no George III.
He's starting to make less sense the homeless man that is always hanging out behind the library, asking me for cigarettes and telling me about the gremlins that live in his pants.Bush said he didn't want any time lapse-interval standing in the way of fighting terrorism. Hello! George! Tutor time! Go ask Condoleezza; she went to school and actually studied. Have her tell you about the whole space-time continuum deal. How what happens afterwards doesn't affect the speed of what went on before. In other words, killing a chicken does not alter how many eggs it has laid in its lifetime. Might put a slight crimp in the number to be laid in the future, but the past tense is finite. Hell, you said it yourself. "The past is over." Its a reality thing. They may not have lived in the real world at Yale, but I'm pretty sure they talked about it.
And stop with the silly charge that the person who told the press about the program is the real bad guy. That they brought the plan to the attention of Al Qaida. Any terrorist who doesn't know that talking on an open, unencrypted line is on a fast track to 72 perfumed virgins and probably not trusted by the big turbans to do anything more important than run out to get the scorched coffee and day-old baklava. Besides, we're never going to understand the mind of al Qaida. These guys spell their name with a "Q," it's not followed by a "U" and use a little “a” for the first letter of their name. They play by rules we don't even understand.
I am beginning to think that Bush really has no idea what is going on. The people pulling the strings are all profiting heavily from the war economy, Christ it’s almost enough to make you think their might be something to all this “Illuminati” bullshit that gets tossed around by the conspiracy-new world order nuts, almost but not quite. I am a native southerner and while we didn’t invent bullshiting we certainly refined it into one of the finer of the literary arts so we can sniff it out pretty readily. Kinda like that “Gay-Dar” thing you hear so much about.
I don’t think Bush is an evil man but I do think he is dangerous. The damage to civil liberties his administration is poised to do could set us up for a future dictatorship and in the short term increase the likely hood of a nightmarish attack along the scale of 9/11. Most everyone agrees that that is inevitability. Bush and his cronies war on terror might satisfy the need to see justice done for the obscene 9/11 events we have but it does nothing to address the root causes. In fact it is little more than revenge. We as free citizens have to be vigilant and proactive about protecting our lives and our freedoms. America and Europe stand as the world leaders on the thresh hold of what could be the next great age of man or possibly an Armageddon. We have the potential to do great good for the world or initiate great harm. The choice is with us. Some where between exterminating the Nazi’s (Good) and now we have gotten a little confused in our agendas. The fall of the U.S.S.R. and the conclusion to the cold war have left us without a clear enemy and “without an enemy anger gets confused” (To quote the late great Elliot smith). Yes terrorism is a major issue we must address; we have ignored it too long. It is no longer an Israeli or Northern Ireland issue but one that is right at our door. Iraq should have been dealt with in 1991, Iran in 1979 and north Korea in the 50’s. We are way behind. Where was this heroic conscious when Po Pot was doing his thing? Tiananmen square? It’s the hypocrisy of it all that kills me. We kiss China’s ass because they have the potential to be a vast economic market and resource not to mention if we fucked with them they have the muscle to spank us. No one should take a population of billions lightly. I personally think we should be watching the Chinese not pissed off religious maniacs with homicidal policies.
Any way that’s my little rant for this Monday morning, I am off to feed the critters, and get ready for the day…I hate it when I am this grumpy this early in the day. I should know better than to read the news before I have my coffee and good morning cigarette.
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 4:16:00 AM
Frequently asked questions about Vice President Cheney shooting a guy in the face with a gun:
Q. Dick Whittingon, the man the Vice President accidentally shot, suffered a minor heart attack. What exactly is a minor heart attack?
A. Any one where the patient (who isn't you) doesn't die.
Q. Didn't the official statement explain that the 17-hour delay before anybody told anybody anything was because they wanted to make sure the statement released to the media was accurate?
A. He shot the guy. In the face. With a gun. How many more facts were needed? The barometric pressure at the time wasn't all that necessary.
Q. Isn't this event illustrative of why they invented the word "accident?"
A. This and the Bush presidency, yes. Besides, who hasn't mistaken a six-foot lawyer wearing a blazing orange vest for a quail?
Q. How many pellets of bird shot did Mr. Whittington get hit with?
A. Doctors estimated between 5 and 200. Nice margin of error there. That's 102 plus or minus 97.
Q. Didn't Cheney call the day of the shooting "one of the worst days of my life?"
A. Yes, he did, although we're pretty sure its not way up there on Whittington's list either.
Q. Let's straighten this out: did Cheney drink a beer at lunch or didn't he drink a beer?
A. According to different reports: yes. And no.
Q. Didn't he also say "you never go hunting with someone who drinks?"
A. Apparently he's never been deer hunting in Northern Wisconsin.
Q. Isn't it true he retired to the Armstrong lodge and ate a "somber roast beef dinner?"
A. Still probably tastier than the hospital food Whittington got during an equally solemn pellet face picking.
Q. Why did the Vice President pick Fox News to give his interview to?
A. A simple desire for the interview to be fair and balanced. And to pay off Britt Hume on a Super Bowl bet.
Q. Who was to blame for the accident?
A. According to Mr. Cheney's staff, Mr. Whittington foolishly planted his face between the gun and the bird.
Q. What are some of the more popular conspiracy theories attached to all this?
A. That Cheney was sending a message to the terrorists, and the message is: "look what we do to our friends."
Q. Anything else?
Q. That these guys are really really serious about tort reform.
Q. If the lawyer happens to die because of the wounds inflicted by the VP, he could be charged with involuntary manslaughter, right?
A. That's true, but because it is Texas, we're most likely looking at a $10 fine for shooting a lawyer out of season.
Q. What's the upside?
A. Our veterans win. The people who are most thankful that Cheney did receive five deferments to Vietnam are our troops, especially considering his penchant for shooting his own men.
Q. Any other ramifications?
A. Outside of George Bush noticeably wearing more Kevlar, no.
Q. Don't you think it's time for the liberals to lay off this and move on to more important affairs of state?
A. Point well taken. They should promise not to give Dick Cheney's lack of moral judgement a single second more attention than was given to Bill Clinton's.
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 11:15:00 PM
If you didn’t see Jon Stewart on Crossfire on October 16, 2004, well, you should have. He came on and handed their asses to them, while their audience and I (Unheard of course) cheered him on. I actually don't mind Crossfire as much as Stewart does, but he has such a strong overall point -- that the media -- and specifically political punditry shows -- don't do any research or analysis - they only serve as mouthpieces for those in power by just repeating their talking points with no filter or gauge. I'll give you the link, but I have to post the whole thing right here, it's just too good not to. And I actually like Tucker Carlson, but it was just too much when he tried to criticize Stewart for not asking Kerry the hard questions. He is one of the people who - as I've talked about before - just doesn't fundamentally understand the Daily Show's satirical nature. I know all of this is old news but I just wanted to post it here. People like Jon Stewart bring things to the attention of middle America they need to hear right in between there weekly dose of American Idol and Jeopardy.
Anyway, here it is - so worth the read:
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the CROSSFIRE Jon Stewart.
STEWART: Thank you.
CARLSON: Thank you for joining us.
STEWART: Thank you very much. That was very kind of you to say.
Can I say something very quickly? Why do we have to fight?
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: The two of you? Can't we just -- say something nice about John Kerry right now.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I like John. I care about John Kerry.
STEWART: And something about President Bush.
BEGALA: He'll be unemployed soon?
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: I failed the test. I'm sorry.
CARLSON: See, I made the effort anyway.
BEGALA: No, actually, I knew Bush in Texas a little bit. And the truth is, he's actually a great guy. He's not a very good president. But he's actually a very good person. I don't think you should have to hate to oppose somebody, but it makes it easier.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Why do you argue, the two of you?
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: I hate to see it.
CARLSON: We enjoy it.
STEWART: Let me ask you a question.
CARLSON: Well, let me ask you a question first.
STEWART: All right.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Is John Kerry -- is John Kerry really the best? I mean, John Kerry has...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Is he the best? I thought Lincoln was good.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Is he the best the Democrats can do?
STEWART: Is he the best the Democrats can do?
CARLSON: Yes, this year of the whole field.
STEWART: I had always thought, in a democracy -- and, again, I don't know -- I've only lived in this country -- that there's a process. They call them primaries.
CARLSON: Right.
STEWART: And they don't always go with the best, but they go with whoever won. So is he the best? According to the process.
CARLSON: Right. But of the nine guys running, who do you think was best. Do you think he was the best, the most impressive?
STEWART: The most impressive?
CARLSON: Yes.
STEWART: I thought Al Sharpton was very impressive.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: I enjoyed his way of speaking.
I think, oftentimes, the person that knows they can't win is allowed to speak the most freely, because, otherwise, shows with titles, such as CROSSFIRE.
BEGALA: CROSSFIRE.
STEWART: Or "HARDBALL" or "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass" or...
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Will jump on it.
In many ways, it's funny. And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: We have noticed.
STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: But in its defense...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.
CARLSON: Yes.
STEWART: Stop.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.
BEGALA: OK. Now
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...
CARLSON: How do you pay?
STEWART: The people -- not well.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.
STEWART: But you can sleep at night.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.
BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.
STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Wait, Jon, let me tell you something valuable that I think we do that I'd like to see you...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Something valuable?
CARLSON: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: I would like to hear it.
CARLSON: And I'll tell you.
When politicians come on...
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: It's nice to get them to try and answer the question. And in order to do that, we try and ask them pointed questions. I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... up on the screen.
STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: No, no, no, here's the point.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: If that's your goal.
CARLSON: It's not.
STEWART: I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.
CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show.
STEWART: Right.
CARLSON: Let me suggest why he wants to come on your show.
STEWART: Well, we have civilized discourse.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Well, here's an example of the civilized discourse.
Here are three of the questions you asked John Kerry.
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee. You asked him questions such as -- quote -- "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?"
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: "Have you ever flip-flopped?" et cetera, et cetera.
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: Didn't you feel like -- you got the chance to interview the guy. Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him?
STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: It sounded that way. It did.
STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility.
CARLSON: I felt the sparks between you.
STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit.
CARLSON: No, the opportunity to...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: So what I would suggest is, when you talk about you're holding politicians' feet to fire, I think that's disingenuous. I think you're...
CARLSON: "How are you holding up?" I mean, come on.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: No, no, no. But my role isn't, I don't think...
CARLSON: But you can ask him a real question, don't you think, instead of saying...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: I don't think I have to. By the way, I also asked him, "Were you in Cambodia?" But I didn't really care.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Because I don't care, because I think it's stupid.
CARLSON: I can tell.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: But my point is this. If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard-hitting enough news questions, we're in bad shape, fellows. (LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: We're here to love you, not confront you.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: We're here to be nice.
STEWART: No, no, no, but what I'm saying is this. I'm not. I'm here to confront you, because we need help from the media and they're hurting us. And it's -- the idea is...
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is -- if the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that...
STEWART: Yes.
BEGALA: And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.
STEWART: Yes.
BEGALA: Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show.
STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great.
BEGALA: It's like saying The Weather Channel reduces everything to a storm front.
STEWART: I would love to see a debate show.
BEGALA: We're 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.
STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Jon, Jon, Jon, I'm sorry. I think you're a good comedian. I think your lectures are boring.
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: Let me ask you a question on the news.
STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious. How old are you?
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Thirty-five. STEWART: And you wear a bow tie.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Yes, I do. I do.
STEWART: So this is...
CARLSON: I know. I know. I know. You're a...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: So this is theater.
CARLSON: Now, let me just...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Now, come on.
STEWART: Now, listen, I'm not suggesting that you're not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.
CARLSON: They're difficult.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: But the thing is that this -- you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great.
BEGALA: We do, do...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: Absolutely.
CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: What is wrong with you?
(APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Well, I'm just saying, there's no reason for you -- when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.
STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far -- you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.
CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.
STEWART: You need to go to one.
The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...
CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.
STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: Go ahead. Go ahead.
STEWART: I watch your show every day. And it kills me.
CARLSON: I can tell you love it.
STEWART: It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: You know, because we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy.
CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?
STEWART: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: I just can't.
CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating. Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities? STEWART: If I think they are.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat with you, man. That's horrible.
STEWART: I know. And you won't. But the thing I want to get to...
BEGALA: We did promise naked pictures of the Supreme Court justices.
CARLSON: Yes, we did. Let's get to those.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: They're in this book, which is a very funny book.
STEWART: Why can't we just talk -- please, I beg of you guys, please.
CARLSON: I think you watch too much CROSSFIRE.
We're going to take a quick break.
STEWART: No, no, no, please.
CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Please. Please stop.
CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire."
STEWART: Please stop.
CARLSON: Hopefully, he'll be here, we hope, we think.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: And then, did U.S. soldiers refuse an order in Iraq. Wolf Blitzer has the latest on this investigation right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
Coming up at the top of the hour, the Pentagon investigator a report that U.S. soldiers refused to go on a dangerous mission in Iraq. We'll have details. In medical news, the FDA prescribes a strongly worded label on antidepressant drugs. And why some experts think the flu vaccine shortage is a grim warning about U.S. vulnerability to bioterrorism.
All those stories, much more, only minutes away on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS."
Now back to CROSSFIRE.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
We're talking to Jon Stewart, who was just lecturing us on our moral inferiority.
Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?
STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.
CARLSON: Oh, OK.
STEWART: What do you think?
BEGALA: Let me change the subject.
STEWART: Where's your moral outrage on this?
CARLSON: I don't have any.
STEWART: I know.
BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material?
STEWART: I'm sorry?
BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material if he won?
STEWART: Mr. T. I think he'd be the funniest. I don't...
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: Don't you have a stake in it that way, as not just a citizen, but as a professional comic?
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Right, which I hold to be much more important than as a citizen.
BEGALA: Well, there you go.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: But who would you provide you better material, do you suppose?
STEWART: I don't really know. That's kind of not how we look at it. We look at, the absurdity of the system provides us the most material. And that is best served by sort of the theater of it all, you know, which, by the way, thank you both, because it's been helpful.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: But, if Kerry gets elected, is it going to -- you have said you're voting for him. You obviously support him. It's clear. Will it be harder for you to mock his administration if he becomes president?
STEWART: No. Why would it be harder?
CARLSON: Because you support...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: The only way it would be harder is if his administration is less absurd than this one. So, in that case, if it's less absurd, then, yes, I think it would be harder.
But, I mean, it would be hard to top this group, quite frankly.
(LAUGHTER)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
STEWART: In terms of absurdity and their world matching up to the one that -- you know, it was interesting. President Bush was saying, John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record.
But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: So I don't worry about it in that respect.
But let me ask you guys, again, a question, because we talked a little bit about, you're actually doing honest debate and all that. But, after the debates, where do you guys head to right afterwards?
CARLSON: The men's room.
STEWART: Right after that?
BEGALA: Home.
STEWART: Spin alley.
BEGALA: Home.
STEWART: No, spin alley.
BEGALA: What are you talking about? You mean at these debates?
STEWART: Yes. You go to spin alley, the place called spin alley. Now, don't you think that, for people watching at home, that's kind of a drag, that you're literally walking to a place called deception lane?
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Like, it's spin alley. It's -- don't you see, that's the issue I'm trying to talk to you guys...
BEGALA: No, I actually believe -- I have a lot of friends who work for President Bush. I went to college with some of them.
CARLSON: Neither of us was ever in the spin room, actually.
(BELL RINGING)
BEGALA: No, I did -- I went to do the Larry King show.
They actually believe what they're saying. They want to persuade you. That's what they're trying to do by spinning. But I don't doubt for a minute these people who work for President Bush, who I disagree with on everything, they believe that stuff, Jon. This is not a lie or a deception at all. They believe in him, just like I believe in my guy.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: I think they believe President Bush would do a better job.
And I believe the Kerry guys believe President Kerry would do a better job. But what I believe is, they're not making honest arguments. So what they're doing is, in their mind, the ends justify the means.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I don't think so at all.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Now, you're getting into it. I like that.
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: OK. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are joined by Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, host of "The Daily Show" and author of No. 1 bestseller, "America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction."
CARLSON: And a ton of fun, I like that too.
BEGALA: Some questions from our audience. Yes sir, what's your name, what's your name?
QUESTION: Hi, my name's David. I'm from Boston.
STEWART: Hi, David.
QUESTION: My question is, what do you think the hump on G.W.'s back during the debate was?
STEWART: Say it again?
QUESTION: What do you think the hump on George's back during the debate was?
STEWART: The hump on his back?
BEGALA: Oh, you're familiar? This is (INAUDIBLE) conspiracy theory. Can I take this one?
STEWART: Yes, please.
BEGALA: It was nothing, his suit was puckering. A lot of people believe he had one of these in his ear. If he was being fed lines by Karl Rove, he would not have been so inarticulate, guys. It's a myth.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: It's not true. There's this huge myth out on the left.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Renee (ph) from Texas. Why do you think it's hard or difficult or impossible for politicians to answer a straight, simple question?
STEWART: I don't think it's hard. I just think that nobody holds their feet to the fire to do it. So they don't have to. They get to come on shows that don't...
BEGALA: They're too easy on them.
CARLSON: Yes. Ask them how you hold...
STEWART: Not easy on them...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... saying we were too hard on people and too (INAUDIBLE).
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: I think you're - yes.
CARLSON: All right. Jon Stewart, come back soon.
BEGALA: Jon Stewart, good of you to join us. Thank you very much. The book is "America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction."
Here's the link:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html
Thanks Crash.
http://dailyshow.blog.com/
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 5:53:00 AM
Not that George W. Bush needs much encouragement, but Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration's domestic operations -- Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy. Which according to whatever fucked up detection device the Bush crew uses could be anyone in opposition to their agenda.
"The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements," Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6 in an effort to be as much like McCarthy as possible. “National threats to security like Captain Planet and the army of human-animal hybrids those atheist scientist are breeding at USC must be eliminated!”. Public relation handlers had to stop Graham from clapping his boots together and “heiling” bush right after his impassioned remarks.
"I stand by this president's ability, inherent to being commander in chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that," Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat. He also said that if this ment hours of cruising teen-centered chat rooms and surfing for Asian boy-toy porn he would bite the bullet and do so.
"Senator," a smiling Gonzales responded, "the president already said we'd be happy to listen to your ideas."
In less paranoid times, Graham's comments might be viewed by many Americans as a Republican trying to have it both ways -- ingratiating himself to an administration of his own party while seeking some credit from Washington centrists for suggesting Congress should have at least a tiny say in how Bush runs the War on Terror. This way he would be covered for every breech of the Constitution he made.
But recent developments suggest that the Bush administration may already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are deemed insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may be considered helpful to the enemy. You know, not support Bush. These bastards who obviously wish to see America run by the same folks who deliver us our slurpies have to be put in check. Top U.S. officials have cited the need to challenge news that undercuts Bush's actions as a key front in defeating the terrorists, who are aided by "news informers," in the words of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. News Informers like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and even such fringe journalist as Rush Limbaugh. “Rush may seem like a straight up kind of guy, but he just isn’t supporting the president enough. He isn’t much better than that Harry (Whittington) fellow Cheney had to give the ol’ what for to a little while ago.” One republican spokesperson said when asked about the issue.
Detention centers
Plus, there was that curious development in January when the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere in the United States, to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs," KBR said.
Later, the New York Times reported that "KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space." They added “we may have to make an area 52,53,54, and even an area 55 before all this is said and done.”
Like most news stories on the KBR contract, the Times focused on concerns about Halliburton's reputation for bilking U.S. taxpayers by overcharging for sub-par services. "It's hard to believe that the administration has decided to entrust Halliburton with even more taxpayer dollars," remarked Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. But none the less makes as much sense as any other moronic decision the Bush administration has made in it’s time in the Oval office.
Less attention centered on the phrase "rapid development of new programs" and what kind of programs would require a major expansion of detention centers, each capable of holding 5,000 people. Jamie Zuieback, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declined to elaborate on what these "new programs" might be.”We were thinking maybe a Christian book camp or maybe a choral group…some have suggested we should start a knitting club but who wants these godless people to have access to needles?”
Only a few independent journalists, such as Peter Dale Scott and Maureen Farrell, have pursued what the Bush administration might actually be thinking. A spokes person for the Bush folks told us that this would be dealt with shortly however.
Scott speculated that the "detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law." He recalled that during the Reagan administration, National Security Council aide Oliver North organized Rex-84 "readiness exercise," which contemplated the Federal Emergency Management Agency rounding up and detaining 400,000 "refugees," in the event of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States or if they finally did something about all those freaks in San Francisco”.
Farrell pointed out that because "another terror attack is all but certain, it seems far more likely that the centers would be used for post-911-type detentions of immigrants rather than a sudden deluge" of immigrants flooding across the border. “We could conceivably house every left leaning pinko professor trying to tell our kids we are related to monkies or that the Universe was the result of some big firework rather than the ordained craft of god, Jesus, Santa Claus and all those cute little cupidish angels.”
Vietnam-era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said, "Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters. They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo."
Labor camps
There also was another little-noticed item posted at the U.S. Army website, about the Pentagon's Civilian Inmate Labor Program. This program "provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations."
The Army document, first drafted in 1997, underwent a "rapid action revision" on Jan. 14, 2005. The revision provides a "template for developing agreements" between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.
On its face, the Army's labor program refers to inmates housed in federal, state and local jails. The Army also cites various federal laws that govern the use of civilian labor and provide for the establishment of prison camps in the United States, including a federal statute that authorizes the attorney general to "establish, equip, and maintain camps upon sites selected by him" and "make available … the services of United States prisoners" to various government departments, including the Department of Defense. “Somebody has to assemble all those bibles and hymnals we use in churches and who the fuck is gonna pluck all those chickens for Sunday brunches if these slobs don’t?”
Though the timing of the document's posting -- within the past few weeks -- may just be a coincidence, the reference to a "rapid action revision" and the KBR contract's contemplation of "rapid development of new programs" has raised eyebrows about why this sudden need for urgency.
These developments also are drawing more attention now because of earlier Bush administration policies to involve the Pentagon in "counter-terrorism" operations inside the United States.
Pentagon surveillance
Despite the Posse Comitatus Act's prohibitions against U.S. military personnel engaging in domestic law enforcement, the Pentagon has expanded its operations beyond previous boundaries, such as its role in domestic surveillance activities. Also they have expanded their definition of “Foreign Territories” to include coffee houses, libraries, public schools and CNN. They have also extended the term Foreigner to include anyone who reads Gore Vidal or “Doonesbury”.
The Washington Post has reported that since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the Defense Department has been creating new agencies that gather and analyze intelligence within the United States.
The White House also is moving to expand the power of the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), created three years ago to consolidate counterintelligence operations. The White House proposal would transform CIFA into an office that has authority to investigate crimes such as treason, terrorist sabotage or economic espionage.
The Pentagon also has pushed legislation in Congress that would create an intelligence exception to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information about U.S. citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies. But some in the Pentagon don't seem to think that new laws are even necessary.
In a 2001 Defense Department memo that surfaced in January 2005, the U.S. Army's top intelligence officer wrote, "Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting U.S. person information."
Drawing a distinction between "collecting" information and "receiving" information on U.S. citizens, the memo argued that "MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone, anytime." This includes discussing any plans to vote for any non-republican candidate in any election or attempting to sell you SUV without plans to replace it with another vehicle of similar qualities.
This receipt of information presumably would include data from the National Security Agency, which has been engaging in surveillance of U.S. citizens without court-approved warrants in apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Security Act. Bush approved the program of warrantless wiretaps shortly after 9/11. Not that any U.S. citizens cared much so long as somebody got blamed and punished.
There also may be an even more extensive surveillance program. Former NSA employee Russell D. Tice told a congressional committee on Feb. 14 that such a top-secret surveillance program existed, but he said he couldn't discuss the details without breaking classification laws. Indeed he had no idea what they were talking about as he had been attending a Pat Robinson Seminar on methods of purging the white race of infidels for the duration of the alleged program.
Tice added that the "special access" surveillance program may be violating the constitutional rights of millions of Americans as well as being responsible for a collection of voyeur “MILF” photos beyond comprehension. With this expanded surveillance, the government's list of terrorist suspects is rapidly swelling not to mention what’s swelling in republican pants nation wide.
The Washington Post reported on Feb. 15 that the National Counterterrorism Center's central repository now holds the names of 325,000 terrorist suspects, a fourfold increase since the fall of 2003. Asked whether the names in the repository were collected through the NSA's domestic surveillance program, an NCTC official told the Post, "Our database includes names of known and suspected international terrorists provided by all intelligence community organizations, including NSA."
Homeland defense
As the administration scoops up more and more names, members of Congress also have questioned the elasticity of Bush's definitions for words like terrorist "affiliates," used to justify wiretapping Americans allegedly in contact with such people or entities.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on the wiretap program, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., complained that the House and Senate Intelligence committees "have not been briefed on the scope and nature of the program."
Feinstein added that, therefore, the committees "have not been able to explore what is a link or an affiliate to al-Qaida or what minimization procedures (for purging the names of innocent people) are in place." Also noted “We are not concerned with the innocent here, only the possibly guilty and the oh yeah they’re guilty. If a few innocent dinks get nailed to the wall then that is just the price we have to pay for justice and security.”
The combination of the Bush administration's expansive reading of its own power and its insistence on extraordinary secrecy has raised the alarm of civil libertarians when contemplating how far the Pentagon might go in involving itself in domestic matters.
A Defense Department document, entitled the "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support," has set out a military strategy against terrorism that envisions an "active, layered defense" both inside and outside U.S. territory. In the document, the Pentagon pledges to "transform U.S. military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the … U.S. homeland." This program has the dicks of self righteous power mad right wing Nazis standing at full attention. All of this is outlined in Bush’s new book Mein all mein Kopht”
The Pentagon strategy paper calls for increased military reconnaissance and surveillance to "defeat potential challengers before they threaten the United States or even before they grow up (A reference to educating children the proper Bush-Republican-Christian way)." The plan "maximizes threat awareness and seizes the initiative from those who would harm us."
But there are concerns over how the Pentagon judges "threats" and who falls under the category "those who would harm us." A Pentagon official said the Counterintelligence Field Activity's TALON program has amassed files on antiwar protesters, aggressive readers, evolution believers, NPR listeners, and fans of the 70’s hit sit com M*A*S*H*.
In December 2005, NBC News revealed the existence of a secret 400-page Pentagon document listing 1,500 "suspicious incidents" over a 10-month period, including dozens of small antiwar demonstrations that were classified as a "threat." Including several “call out sick events by minimum wage workers which looked suspicious.
The Defense Department also might be moving toward legitimizing the use of propaganda domestically, as part of its overall war strategy. “We have loads ready to roll all modeled after our very successful ‘Touched by an Angel’ campaign as well as the excellent models left to us by the German National Socialist Party from so long ago.
A secret Pentagon "Information Operations Roadmap," approved by Rumsfeld in October 2003, calls for "full spectrum" information operations and notes that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice versa."
"PSYOPS messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," the document states. The Pentagon argues, however, that "the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [U.S. government] intent rather than information dissemination practices."
It calls for "boundaries" between information operations abroad and the news media at home, but does not outline any corresponding limits on PSYOP campaigns.
Similar to the distinction the Pentagon draws between "collecting" and "receiving" intelligence on U.S. citizens, the Information Operations Roadmap argues that as long as the American public is not intentionally "targeted," any PSYOP propaganda consumed by the American public is acceptable.
The Pentagon plan also includes a strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the flow of information, viewing the web as a potential military adversary. The "roadmap" speaks of "fighting the net," and implies that the internet is the equivalent of "an enemy weapons system. Where deviant free thinking ideas could possibly be transferred from one non Bush supporter to another or worse. We here they have naked people there and we all know how vile the nude body is with all it’s ‘parts’ "
In a speech on Feb. 17 to the Council on Foreign Relations, Rumsfeld elaborated on the administration's perception that the battle over information would be a crucial front in the War on Terror, or as Rumsfeld calls it, the Long War. Jeeze it’s hard to even make a smart ass comment on that as it is so fucking scary.
"Let there be no doubt, the longer it takes to put a strategic communication framework into place, the more we can be certain that the vacuum will be filled by the enemy and by news informers that most assuredly will not paint an accurate picture of what is actually taking place," Rumsfeld said. “If our beutifal vison of America free of dilution is to come to pass we must be allowed to do this.”
The Department of Homeland Security also has demonstrated a tendency to deploy military operatives to deal with domestic crises. “Nothing ever shuts up some left wing fag pussy like shooting his wife and kids right before his eyes or blasting his nuts off with a bazooka in front of his loved ones does.”
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the department dispatched "heavily armed paramilitary mercenaries from the Blackwater private security firm, infamous for its work in Iraq, (and had them) openly patrolling the streets of New Orleans," reported journalists Jeremy Scahill and Daniela Crespo on Sept. 10, 2005. A practice run no doubt.
Noting the reputation of the Blackwater mercenaries as "some of the most feared professional killers in the world," Scahill and Crespo said Blackwater's presence in New Orleans "raises alarming questions about why the government would allow men trained to kill with impunity in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to operate here."
U.S. battlefield
In the view of some civil libertarians, a form of martial law already exists in the United States and has been in place since shortly after the 9/11 attacks when Bush issued Military Order No. 1 which empowered him to detain any noncitizen as an international terrorist or enemy combatant.
"The president decided that he was no longer running the country as a civilian president," wrote civil rights attorney Michael Ratner in the book "Guantanamo: What the World Should Know." "He issued a military order giving himself the power to run the country as a general."
For any American citizen suspected of collaborating with terrorists, Bush also revealed what's in store. In May 2002, the FBI arrested U.S. citizen Jose Padilla in Chicago on suspicion that he might be an al-Qaida operative planning an attack.
Rather than bring criminal charges, Bush designated Padilla an "enemy combatant" and had him imprisoned indefinitely without benefit of due process. After three years, the administration finally brought charges against Padilla, in order to avoid a Supreme Court showdown the White House might have lost.
But since the court was not able to rule on the Padilla case, the administration's arguments have not been formally repudiated. Indeed, despite filing charges against Padilla, the White House still asserts the right to detain U.S. citizens without charges as enemy combatants.
This claimed authority is based on the assertion that the United States is at war and the American homeland is part of the battlefield.
"In the war against terrorists of global reach, as the nation learned all too well on Sept. 11, 2001, the territory of the United States is part of the battlefield," Bush's lawyers argued in briefs to the federal courts.
Given Bush's now open assertions that he is using his "plenary" -- or unlimited -- powers as commander in chief for the duration of the indefinite War on Terror, Americans can no longer trust that their constitutional rights protect them from government actions.
As former Vice President Al Gore asked after recounting a litany of sweeping powers that Bush has asserted to fight the War on Terror, "Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is 'yes,' then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?" see my earlier post on Mr. Gore for more on this.
In such extraordinary circumstances, the American people might legitimately ask exactly what the Bush administration means by the "rapid development of new programs," which might require the construction of a new network of detention camps.
Beware.
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 5:34:00 AM
I have choosen this cheesy pun as my 100th post here. Yes, I know it's awful but that's what is so wonderful about it. I absolutely love a pun of any type, no matter how corny. Right now I have an idea for a cartoon that has potential but has proven itself to be a bit tricky to translate into a good visual. It goes as follows; A Tao'st monk walks into a Catholic Confessional and says to the Priest "Forgive me Father for I have Zen'd" Badum Chump. Oh, I do slay me.
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 11:49:00 PM
Hurray! the pregnency is not "tubal" and everything looks normal for the stage Shanzi is at. I was going to post a picture from the ultrasound but at the moment I am unable too due to technical problems. Since I can't post that I will post this instead. 
This is a picture of the "Big Chicken" back home in Georgia. It is in no way related but I decided to go with it as I used this photo to test my new open source graphics program. It will have to do until I can fix the program, when I will get around to that I don't know. I still have a job to look into today, firewood to split and a meeting of the local ACLU group to get ready for. Someday I may find all the time I need to do the million silly things I wish to do. For now this will have to do. Bleh.
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 2:49:00 PM
"These aren't science glasses--they're Intelligent Design Specs. I call 'em the Intelli-Visions. Heh heh."George Bush.
First we have the president promoting health savings accounts at that well-known money factory, Wendy's:
In an hourlong speech in one of the most politically troublesome states for Republicans in this year's midterm elections, Mr. Bush took on critics of his plan, who say that poor or underemployed people cannot afford the accounts.
"It's kind of basically saying, 'If you're not making a lot of money, you can't make decisions for yourself,' " Mr. Bush told Wendy's employees assembled in the company's lobby. "That's kind of a Washington attitude, isn't it. 'We'll decide for you, you can't figure it out yourself.' I think a lot of folks here at Wendy's would argue that point of view is just simply backwards and not true."
Some strawpeople call you monkeyslaves, but I see more than that. I see a source of revenue for my buddies on Wall Street. Heh heh.
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 12:04:00 PM
Nothing beats the newspapers for inspiration. My casual cruise through them this morning reveals a wealth of material. I love reading the local blotter pages as they are an endless source of amusement. My personal favorite one so far is from a month or so ago. It was In my beloved South Beach Bulletin and involved law enforcement officers being called out to investigate suspicious activity on a roof top being carried out by several raccoons. Officers reported no evidence of wrong doing past criminal trespass when they arrived at the scene and suspects had fled into night. I need to find that to re-print here. In the national papers I can always count on finding the absurd, the scary and the infuriating. I’ll list a few examples here but there are many others. I just don’t have time this morning to show case them all. Shanzi and I have to be at the doctors soon and I have another interview to go to. Prehapes later I may get around to posting them all. Anyway here ya go…
Constitution Schmonstitution. Since Indiana Republican Mike Sodrel didn't like the federal court's decision to prohibit explicit mentions of Jesus in state house prayers, he decided to introduce legislation to kick the federal court's ass.
Okay, it's not really about kicking ass so much as it's about stripping the court's jurisdiction with respect to the state house.
Sarah Posner puts this absurdity into context:
"Here's the M.O.: federal court issues decision Republicans disagree with. Republicans cry, "judicial activism!" and assert that the system of checks and balances requires that Congress regulate the activities of the federal courts. Thus, strip them of jurisdiction over hot button issues like gay marriage, prayer in public venues, or abortion. That way, the argument goes, Congress is providing a balance against the out-of-control federal courts."
In noting that the Republican system has it backwards, Posner points out that Sodrel's biggest campaign contributors are "the PACs of Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, and Roy Blunt."
Well that is really more scary than amusing however the Washington Post comes through on what has to be the most absurd thing I have read recently. This is simply the funniest thing I've seen since the confectioner's union in Iran decided to rename the Danish ( I need to post that one). In a Republican district of Virginia, local law enforcement officers have been nabbing the criminals in a most unorthodox manner…. by engaging in sexual acts. According to the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502398.html
“Limelight Shines On Lewd Tactics
Spotsylvania Is Talk of the Nation
By Karin Brulliard
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 16, 2006; B01
Spotsylvania County's practice of allowing detectives to receive sexual services in prostitution cases has exploded across the nation, fueled by snickering bloggers and talk radio shows, and the county's top official has asked the sheriff to stop using the investigative technique.
Chairman Henry "Hap" Connors Jr. said the seven-member Board of Supervisors is "very disturbed" that investigators had sexual contact with employees of massage parlors suspected of being fronts for prostitution. Connors said he has asked Sheriff Howard D. Smith to cease the practice.
"He told me as sheriff he would pursue his policies, and I respect that," Connors said yesterday. The board has no power over the Sheriff's Office beyond its budget. "We'll let the public dictate whether or not they want us to continue these practices," Connors said.
Smith, an elected official, did not return several calls yesterday. In a joint news release Monday, the day the practice was reported in The Washington Post, Smith and the county's chief prosecutor, Commonwealth's Attorney William F. Neely, defended the tactic. They said detectives needed to go beyond striking verbal deals of sex for money because the "masseuses," whom they called "illegal aliens," spoke little English and Virginia's prostitution laws require more than "mere touching" to make a case. Neely also did not return calls yesterday.
According to court documents, Spotsylvania detectives paid three visits to the Moon Spa in January and received massages, baths and sex acts on four occasions. Smith previously told The Post it was not the first time his agency has employed the full-contact method, which he said is essential because many prostitutes avoid verbally incriminating themselves. Several legal and law enforcement experts said the practice is rarely used, if ever, and might amount to breaking the law.
In their news release, Smith and Neely said that undercover officers often purchase illegal drugs to build cases against dealers and that the "same lawful investigative technique" was used in the prostitution cases. A Virginia law banning drug possession exempts law-enforcement officers who possess narcotics as part of their job duties. The prostitution statute makes no such exception.
Connors said he has received dozens of e-mails since Monday -- from Ohio, Iowa and beyond. About 10 percent have been supportive of the investigations, "but the overwhelming response has been one of disgust, shock and embarrassment," he said.
"He is making us the laughingstock of the country," one constituent wrote in an e-mail, referring to Smith. "I have a friend who works for the O'Reilly factor and he called me to verify the story. . . . .My dad read it on Drudge and sent me the link. He lives in Montana. This is absolutely horrible. What do I tell my kids?" Other e-mails called the investigation "asinine," "abhorrent" and "not normal!"
Yesterday, an account of the investigations was the most popular story on officer.com, a Web site for law enforcement, before being briefly nudged out by news that Lou Ferrigno, star of "The Incredible Hulk," was to be sworn in last night as a Los Angeles County reserve sheriff's deputy. Later, the Spotsylvania story was back on top.
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh weighed in Monday, assuring listeners that he was "not making this up."
"I know it's a dirty job, somebody's gotta do it, can you imagine the waiting list?" Limbaugh said. "I bet there's no unemployment in Spotsylvania, Virginia."
Supervisor Gary Jackson (R-Salem) said he learned about the investigation from The Post story and "literally dropped my coffee. . . . I could not believe that this was going on down the street from where I live." He said constituent response -- all critical of the sexual contact -- is mounting.
"And appropriately so," Jackson said. "We do things our own way in Spotsylvania County, and I don't think this is quite the way that we want to handle these problems."
Del. Mark L. Cole (R-Fredericksburg), whose district includes part of Spotsylvania, said that he is disappointed detectives have been accepting sexual acts and that he told Smith as much. "I don't expect them to repeat this in the future," he said.
Del. Robert D. "Bobby" Orrock Sr. (R-Caroline) said it's strictly a local matter.
Supervisor Vince Onorato (I-Lee Hill) said he doesn't get involved in the sheriff's business.
The practice has been employed by suburban Maryland police in recent years, but not successfully. After Howard County detectives accepted sexual services from masseuses in 1995, prosecutors dismissed most charges to avoid revealing the tactic in court. When Montgomery County police sent informants to have sex with female massage parlor employees, prosecutors there halted the practice and dismissed charges against the women.”
Besides the basic premise, the article is littered with innuendo, including my favorite from butterfingers Republican Supervisor Gary Jackson, who points out that "constituent response -- all critical of the sexual contact -- is mounting." You have got to be kidding me, “mounting” I can only assume R. Jackson has a much deeper sense of humor than at first is evident or is simply a moron.
Rush Limbaugh thinks it's funny too. But that's not much of a surprise given that he's bragged about inspiring a prostitute in the White House Press Corps...
Aside from some much needed yucks, the policy stands as a convenient metaphor for the prevailing law-enforcement and foreign policy theories among our leaders. Even if we have to stoop to the level of those we accuse of being "the bad guys" we're still in the right because we have the (insert standard-bearer of power here). In other words those in power are sending the message of “Do as we say not as we do” Nothing new there.
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 11:57:00 AM
I know I said I was through with Cheney but I have another I just cannot resist posting. It is the pic below. This was pretty cool, check out what the "tiles" are in this mosaic I found this on another blog that I have linked http://blog.evankai.com/archives/000472.php to give credit where credit is due. I have another of Bush I would like to put up here if I can find and formate it. Click on the picture for a larger view and you should be able to see the tiles a bit clearer
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 5:43:00 PM
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 5:17:00 PM
I have completely avoided referring to Dick Cheney for an entire day or so. Notice the restraint. I had orignaly planed a daily log of entitled “Cheney watch”- a Nation holds it’s breath . I have not. Notice the “J.D.Salingeresque”* capacity for silence. Why the clam-up? Because the incident has gotten more coverage already than the landing at Normandy, and I don't want to contribute to this climate of hysteria and conspiracy-theorizing and tabloid journalism. I'm above this whole thing, operating on a higher plane**. And thus will mention only briefly my theory that Whittington was instantly killed by Cheney and the man in the hospital is an imposter.
I'm not saying this is true, only that it has some potential latent “truthiness” (A word I borrow from one of my favorite shows “The Colbert Report”. I hope the gentleman in question is doing well and recovers quickly from his wounds, though I'm confident he's been dead since Saturday afternoon. Please, people, don't be pathetically naive, the man was obliterated with a shotgun. Don't be a fooled. Why haven't we seen hide or hair of Mr. Whittington? Because he doesn’t exists anymore. To get a photo of the guy at this point you'd need a paranormal camera.
This whole thing reeks of a cover story, and one a lot more fun than any Tri-lateral Illumunati bullshit. To boot it sounds more crediable than Roswell Incident cover ups I get to hear all too often…sigh.. Any way to continue; The fact that Cheney has claimed to be the gunman makes me wonder if he's covering up something even darker: Like, he killed Whittington weeks ago and this whole thing was an attempt to concoct a way to dispose of the body. By the way, notice that Cheney himself said he didn't speak publicly right away because no one would believe him. [Hume: "...it does raise the question of whether you couldn't have headed off this beltway firestorm if you had put out the word to the national media..." Cheney: "Well, who is going to do that? Are they going to take my word for what happened?"]. Special note: This excuse for coming forward on the truth does not apply to any thing associated with CIA intelligence about the notorious WMS –weapons of mass destruction with members of our presidential administration.***
It's simple. Cheney fires his shotgun, boom, Whittington's vaporized, and the V.P. has to go into the kind of crisis-management mode for which he is famous. First he looks around and asks if the Secret Service plans to carry him bodily to a bunker somewhere. Then he realizes that he is fortuitously prepared to handle precisely this kind of disaster. He travels with a large entourage: military attaché, personal doctor, heart surgeon, endocrinologist, podiatrist, sommelier, outrider, hair stylist, and so on, right down to the body double who, whenever Cheney hunts, is always standing by to play the role, if necessary, of "gunshot survivor." And so one thing leads to another, and here we are. And that's all I'm saying about it. Que ominous music and still shot of fuzzy photo…
*An adjective of my own personal fashion
**Yeah right, I know I know…
***I exempt Colin Powel from this group of self righteous lying republican-nazi goobers. The man went on record in a press conference with the BBC a few weeks ago to admit the presidents office acted on false information and deliberately misled the public on this matter. I have and continue to respect this man, he is one of the few conservatives out there today with any integrity or honesty demonstrated.
One last Cheney folly I just can’t resist. I laughed aloud when I made this and I just have to use it. I hope you will forgive the Beavis and Butthead nature of this post. Lol!
In the photo to the right is a picture of Vice president "Dick" Cheney as he answers a question about the size of his penis. The question was part of a series from west coast journalist Fran Shempnickle that probed into why Cheney was such an ass hole. After the press conference spokespeople for Cheney and his staff pointed out that it was demonstritive proof that the presidential administration was both tolerante and in pocession of a sense of humor, something they have been acused of lacking in the past. As to journalist Shempnickle, it sad to report that we won't be hearing from him in the future as he was fataly shot in an unrelated hunting accident later. I thought this sounded fishy and I wondered if his outspoken line of questioning had made him the target of a goverment assination. I made a few calls and found out a few things; that despite the fact that mr. Shempnickle was a vegitarian, had never owned or fired in his lifetime and does not hunt he does however frequently wonder through wooded areas in a deer costume. Why he does this is a mystery, it is prehapes for the same reason some folks go base jumping, climb rock faces, and ride roller blades, for the thrill. Maybe Mr. Shempnickle was an adrinaline junkie who loved teasing Death. It seems the most likely senario to me.
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 3:41:00 PM
The text of this post is from an im exchange I had this morning with a stranger. It is one of the odder conversations I can recall in recent memory. However strange conversations are fairly common on the net. If "strange is all you get from the unsolicited web social butterfly consider yourself fortunate. Normaly these out of the blue tags are juvinile and vulgar or they are from trying to sell you something (Which is probably what this one was, though I didn't really understand their marketing tactics).
In all too many cases the are the attempts of malicious hackers and jackers looking for a way into your computer. I don't think this ome was one of those but it did strike me as funny which is why I am posting it here. I, by the way am "augy" in this im exchange and the other individual is "roufje7" (Sounds sort of like a Russian space craft doesn't it?) and flyingbird...Funny old world...
roufje7 (2/17/2006 8:13:10 AM): hey there are u into sneezing? and do you sneeze a lot?
Augi (2/17/2006 12:10:57 PM): ? Pardon ?
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:29:41 PM): hello there
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:29:45 PM): how are u?
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:29:54 PM): are u into sneezing?
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:31:14 PM): or am i now writing to the wrong person?
Augi (2/17/2006 12:31:21 PM): I am afraid you have me at a loss. Do I know you and why are you curious about "sneezing"
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:31:42 PM): mmm strange
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:31:52 PM): duno from which group i got you from on the yahoo
Augi (2/17/2006 12:32:09 PM): Group?
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:32:15 PM): yeah yahoo groups
Augi (2/17/2006 12:33:33 PM): I am lost here. Do I know you ? Yahoo groups?
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:33:53 PM): no you don't know me i guess
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:34:12 PM): but i just searched some people on yahoo groups to talk about it
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:34:20 PM): but lets forget the sneezing part hahah never mind
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:34:27 PM): by the way nice meeting you
Augi (2/17/2006 12:35:00 PM): What yahoo groups ?
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:35:29 PM): sneeze groups dunno anymore
Augi (2/17/2006 12:36:07 PM): I can assure you I am not a member of any "sneezing" groups.
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:36:17 PM): mmm ok
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:36:24 PM): sorry then i got it wrong i guess
Augi (2/17/2006 12:36:57 PM): Sure, it happens
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:37:25 PM): so wher eyou from? i'm from HOlland
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:37:26 PM):
Augi (2/17/2006 12:38:08 PM): The U.S.
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:38:15 PM): wow that far away
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:38:23 PM): all the way cross the ocean haha
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:38:26 PM):
Augi (2/17/2006 12:38:50 PM): Indeed
Augi (2/17/2006 12:42:16 PM): Do you always select random people from across the net to survey their sneezing prefrences? Or was today just a wild leap.
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:49:28 PM): haha today was just a wild leep haha
Augi (2/17/2006 12:49:32 PM): Well toodles then. Heb een aangename dag
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:49:35 PM): sorry for disturibing you
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:49:43 PM): hahaha
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:49:51 PM): how do you know that
Augi (2/17/2006 12:50:05 PM): You are not disturbing me just confusing me
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:50:26 PM): sorry for confusing you
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:50:36 PM):
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:50:41 PM): how do you know dutch?
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:52:14 PM): can i ask you some questions?
Augi (2/17/2006 12:52:27 PM): I don't. I know a little German and I have a ...er, uh sure.
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:52:43 PM): what is your goal in life?
Augi (2/17/2006 12:54:06 PM): That is not only rather vauge but a little forward. I
Augi (2/17/2006 12:55:44 PM): I couldn't begin to answer that in any thing less than a 1,000,000 words and even then I am not sure that it would mean anything
roufje7 (2/17/2006 12:59:57 PM): mmm yeah ok
roufje7 (2/17/2006 1:00:17 PM): i gues smy answer would be : finding out who I am
roufje7 (2/17/2006 1:00:43 PM): i don't knwo who i am yet, we change everyday, make new choices, meet different people, make mistakes but also find love
roufje7 (2/17/2006 1:01:03 PM): i couldn't give you the answer myself so i wan to know who the real me is at the end of my life
roufje7 (2/17/2006 1:01:26 PM): the only thing i'm sure of now is that the red line in my life are the ones who are near to my heart
roufje7 (2/17/2006 1:01:30 PM):
roufje7 (2/17/2006 1:01:42 PM): am i going a bit too deep for you there?
Augi (2/17/2006 1:02:50 PM): It's quite a leap from nasal spasms to broad philosophical ponderings, I'll say that.
Augi (2/17/2006 1:35:19 PM): Especially with a Dutch stranger …what time is it there anyway? Opps, lost the Wi Fi.
Augi (2/17/2006 1:49:01 PM): This has got to be the oddest converstaion (?) I have had in a long time.Het is een grappig ouderwets. Toodles
Flyingbird - (2/17/2006 1:49:24 PM): hahah ok
Flyingbird - (2/17/2006 1:49:41 PM): oh well its always nice to meet new people
Flyingbird - (2/17/2006 1:49:45 PM):
Augi (2/17/2006 1:50:33 PM): roufje7 ? Flyingbird ?
Flyingbird - (2/17/2006 1:50:47 PM): yups
Augi (2/17/2006 1:51:34 PM): okee dokee
Flyingbird - (2/17/2006 1:52:11 PM):
Augi (2/17/2006 1:55:36 PM): It can be I suppose. What is story behind roufje? and the additional 7 too I suppose.
Flyingbird - (2/17/2006 1:56:05 PM): roufje was my horse
Flyingbird - (2/17/2006 1:56:29 PM): well roufje is my horse.......although he died 5 year ago........but he stays my horse no matter what
roufje7 has signed back in. (2/17/2006 1:56 PM)
Augi (2/17/2006 1:57:22 PM): Oh, sorry to hear that. What does that name mean?
Flyingbird - (2/17/2006 2:00:02 PM): its just a name does not mean anything though he had it when i bought him
Flyingbird - (2/17/2006 2:00:05 PM):
Augi (2/17/2006 2:02:32 PM): Well there you go then
Augi (2/17/2006 2:11:55 PM): So why are you using two names ?
Augi (2/17/2006 2:21:11 PM): Well, it has been most surreal ...take care
posted by Saint Tuesday @ 2:24:00 PM
Thoughts and stories from the veiw point of an eccentric and eratic orbit.
Crabby and clever. I am both kind and crunchy. Though many think John was the Walrus in truth it was Paul, me? I am the Grey Mouse.
