impending buildup at the Crawford Ranch, protesters, that is

What in the world is going on?
User avatar
jimboloco
Posts: 5797
Joined: November 29th, 2004, 11:48 am
Location: st pete, florita
Contact:

Post by jimboloco » August 24th, 2005, 1:07 pm

Just watched a talk show on Fox tv

Code: Select all

A Green Speaks on Iraq War Protest

Kathy Fountain Show (Your Turn)
Today - 12:35 Fox 13 TV



       Today Mark Kamleiter will be a guest on Kathy Fountain's TV talk/call-in show, Your Turn.  The subject will be the Iraq War Protests and Cindy Sheehan.




[quote][/quote]
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]

User avatar
bohonato
Posts: 412
Joined: December 24th, 2004, 3:44 pm
Location: austin, tx

Post by bohonato » August 24th, 2005, 1:54 pm

Last Sunday the Macomb Daily's Bill O'Reilly (who also manages to piss me off) column stated:

"But it's sad to watch this woman being used by organizations that not only oppose the Iraq war, but believe the United Sates is a fundamentally flawed nation.
...
It is one thing to object to a war; it is quite another to throw in with poeple who are consistently hateful toward traditional America. Sheehan now calls President Bush a murderer, and the United States an "imperialistic" country."

Imperialistic country. What would ever lead someone to call the Good Ole US that?

Hmmm.

The 11 invasions of Mexico starting in 1914
Haiti in 1915
The Dominican Republic in 1916
Cuba - 1917
Panama - 1918
Nicaraqua
Russia 1917-1920

Iran - 1953
Guatemala - 1954
Lebanon - 1957
Zaire (congo) - 1961
Chile - 1973

This is just a simplistic list. The US government admits all of these.

And as all future plans involve United States military bases staying in Iraq, can any one honestly tell me that the US will have NO influence on the Iraqi government? We already have.

Are the facts "Anti-American"? Cause we are an Imperial Nation.
How do you think Hawaii became a state?

User avatar
jimboloco
Posts: 5797
Joined: November 29th, 2004, 11:48 am
Location: st pete, florita
Contact:

Post by jimboloco » August 24th, 2005, 4:19 pm

Mercy the Macomb Daily
mercy unbelieveable
you got any alternative radio or links around there?

haven't been back since 1969
took my golden bars and split
just before woodstock
i did see hair in london in may
my friend stayed out and probably
went on to woodstock that summer

oh yeah i was there down and out in 1976
drove for macomb cab easy
shoulda stayed
it was a groovy little cab company
went into the inner city
detroit
metropolitan cab
and highland park
art classes at wayne state

crazy
shoulda stayed in the sub-burbez
sub-urbane
a groovy job,
polish and german suburbs.....
dip on down to eight mile
then stay below
whoah.

yes the despisal that editorial claims for us, the multitudes.

scary. they are afraid of us. it is not a healthy demeaner at all.

what's a poor bohemian kook to do? stay undercover?
woah on the streets and in the schools
bows
Last edited by jimboloco on August 26th, 2005, 8:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]

User avatar
Zlatko Waterman
Posts: 1631
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Contact:

Post by Zlatko Waterman » August 25th, 2005, 10:58 am

(Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ask pertinent questions(below).

Jointly, this list of CIA and other professional intelligence agents and analysts has over 150 years of service and experience analyzing data and reaching conclusions. How do you suppose George W. Bush's experience compares with theirs? Or Paul Wolfowitz's? Or Doug Feith's? Or Karl Rove's?)




Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: Memo to President

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: Recommendation: Try a Circle of "Wise Women"

By way of reintroduction, we begin with a brief reminder of the analyses we provided you before the attack on Iraq. On the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, following Colin Powell's speech before the UN Security Council that morning, we sent you our critique of his attempt to make the case for war. (You may recall that we gave him an "A" for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq and a "C-" for providing context and perspective.) Unlike Powell, we made no claim that our analysis was "irrefutable/undeniable." We did point out, though, that what he said fell far short of justification for war. We closed with these words: "We are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

To jog your memory further, the thrust of our next two prewar memoranda can be gleaned from their titles: "Cooking Intelligence for War" (March 12) and "Forgery, Hyperbole, Half-Truth: A Problem" (March 18). When the war started, we reasoned at first that you might had been oblivious to our cautions. However, last spring's disclosures in the "Downing Street memo" containing the official minutes of Tony Blair's briefing on July 23, 2002 – and the particularly bald acknowledgment that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of war on Iraq – show that the White House was well aware of how the intelligence was being cooked. We write you now in the hope that the sour results of the recipe – the current bedlam in Iraq – will incline you to seek and ponder wider opinion this time around.

A Still Narrower Circle

With the departure of Colin Powell, your circle of advisers has shrunk rather than widened. The amateur architects of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seem still to have your ear. At a similar stage of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson woke up to the fact that he had been poorly served by his principal advisers and quickly appointed an informal group of "wise men" to provide fresh insight and advice. It turned out to be one of the smartest things Johnson did. He was brought to realize that the U.S. could not prevail in Vietnam; that he was finished politically; and that the U.S. needed to move to negotiations with the Vietnamese "insurgents."

It is clear to those of us who witnessed at first hand the gross miscalculations on Vietnam that a similar juncture has now been reached on Iraq. We are astonished at the advice you have been getting – the vice president's recent assurance that the Iraqi resistance is "in its last throes," for example. (Shades of his assurances that U.S. forces would be welcomed as "liberators" in Iraq.) And Secretary Rumsfeld's unreassuring reminders that "some things are unknowable" and the familiar bromide that "time will tell" are wearing thin. By now it is probably becoming clear to you that you need outside counsel.

The good news is that some help is on its way. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey has taken the initiative to schedule a hearing on Sept. 15, where knowledgeable specialists on various aspects of the situation in Iraq will present their views. Unfortunately, it appears that this opportunity to learn will fall short of the extremely informative bipartisan hearings led by Sen. William Fulbright on Vietnam. The refusal thus far of the House Republican leadership to make a suitable conference room available suggests that the Woolsey hearing, like the one led by Congressman John Conyers on June 16, will lack the kind of bipartisan support so necessary if one is to deal sensibly with the Iraq problem.

Meanwhile, we respectfully suggest that you could profit from the insights of the informal group of "wise women" right there in Crawford. You could hardly do better than to ride your bike down to Camp Casey. There you will find Gold Star mothers, Iraq (and Vietnam) war veterans, and others eager to share reality-based perspectives of the kind you are unlikely to hear from your small circle of yes-men and the yes-woman in Washington, none of whom have had direct experience of war. As you know, Cindy Sheehan has been waiting to get on your calendar. She is now back in Crawford and has resumed her Lazarus-at-the-Gate vigil in front of your ranch. We strongly suggest that you take time out from your vacation to meet with her and the other Gold Star mothers when you get back to Crawford later this week. This would be a useful way for you to acquire insight into the many shades of gray between the blacks and whites of Iraq, and to become more sensitized to the indignities that so often confound and infuriate the mothers, fathers, wives, and other relatives of soldiers killed and wounded there.

Names and Faces

Here are the names, ages, and hometowns of the eight soldiers, including Casey Sheehan, killed in the ambush in Sadr City, Baghdad on April 4, 2004:

Specialist Robert R. Arsiaga, 25, San Antonio, Texas
Specialist Ahmed A. Cason, 24, McCalla, Alabama
Sergeant Yihjyh L. Chen, 31, Saipan, Marianas
Specialist Israel Garza, 25, Lubbock, Texas
Specialist Stephen D. Hiller, 25, Opelika, Alabama
Corporal Forest J. Jostes, 22, Albion, Illinois
Sergeant Michael W. Mitchell, 25, Porterville, California
Specialist Casey A. Sheehan, 24, Vacaville, California

Mike Mitchell's father, Bill, has been camped out for two weeks with Cindy Sheehan and others a short bike ride from your place. They have a lot of questions – big and small. You are aware of the big ones: In what sense were the deaths of Casey, Mike Mitchell, and the others "worth it?" In what sense is the continued occupation of Iraq a "noble cause?" No doubt you have been given talking points on those. But the time has passed for sound bites and rhetoric. We are suggesting something much more real – and private.

Questions

There are less ambitious – one might call them more tactical – questions that are also accompanied by a lot of pain and frustration. Those eight fine soldiers were killed by forces loyal to the fiercely anti-American Moqtada al-Sadr, the young Shia cleric with a militant following, particularly in Baghdad's impoverished suburbs. The ambush was part of a violent uprising resulting from U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer's decision to close down al-Hawza, al-Sadr's newspaper, on March 28, 2004.

And not only that. A senior aide of al-Sadr was arrested by U.S. forces on April 3. The following day al-Sadr ordered his followers to "terrorize" occupation forces and this sparked the deadly street battles, including the ambush. Also on April 4, Bremer branded al-Sadr an "outlaw" and coalition spokesman Dan Senor said coalition forces planned to arrest him as well. In sum, before one can begin to understand the grief of Cindy, Bill, and the relatives of the other six soldiers killed, you need to know – as they do – what else was going on April 4, 2004.

You may wish to come prepared to answer specific questions like the following:

1. Closing down newspapers and arresting key opposition figures seem a strange way to foster democracy. Please explain. And how could Ambassador Bremer possibly have thought that al-Sadr would simply acquiesce?

2. Moqtada al-Sadr seems to have landed on his feet. At this point, he and other Shi'ite clerics appear on the verge of imposing an Islamic state with sharia law and a very close relationship with Iran. With this kind of prospect, can you feel the frustration of Gold Star mothers when the extremist ultimately responsible for their sons' deaths assumes a leadership role in the new Iraq? Can you understand their strong wish to prevent the sacrifice of still more of our children for such dubious purpose?

Perhaps you will have good answers to these and other such questions. Good answers or no, we believe a quiet, respectful session with the wise women and perhaps others at your doorstep would give you valuable new insights into the ironic conundrums and human dimensions of the war in Iraq.

A member of our Steering Committee, Ann Wright, has been on site at Camp Casey from the outset and would be happy to facilitate such a session. A veteran Army colonel (and also a senior Foreign Service officer until she resigned in protest over the attack on Iraq), Ann has been keeping Camps Casey I and II running in a good-neighborly, orderly way. She is well known to your Secret Service agents, who can lead you to her. We strongly urge you not to miss this opportunity.

/s/
Gene Betit, Arlington, Virginia
Sibel Edmonds, Alexandria, Virginia
Larry Johnson, Bethesda, Maryland
David MacMichael, Linden, Virginia
Ray McGovern, Arlington, Virginia
Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, Minnesota
Ann Wright, Honolulu, Hawaii

User avatar
Zlatko Waterman
Posts: 1631
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Contact:

Post by Zlatko Waterman » August 25th, 2005, 11:31 am

And since Jimbo mentioned the Reverend Pat Robertson, here's a little scurrilous piece of political satire from The White House web site:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/101203.asp

in response to Doctor Robertson's suggestion that the State Department needed to be hit with a suitcase nuke.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dyna ... index.html

( the link above is to the original CNN story of Robertson's suggestion on his "700 Club" tv show.)



Oh my. What strong views a war brings out.


--Z

User avatar
bohonato
Posts: 412
Joined: December 24th, 2004, 3:44 pm
Location: austin, tx

Post by bohonato » August 25th, 2005, 4:33 pm

We can pick up Canadian radio stations and television channels. However, the CBC2's staff seems to have gone on strike, just like our friends at NorthWest, so the Canadian point of view is momentarily stalled.

There are some alt publications, but a lot of them are more national than local. A friend and I have a basement newspaper we put out occasionally. Besides that I don't know of anything that is local and does not require an internet connection.

User avatar
jimboloco
Posts: 5797
Joined: November 29th, 2004, 11:48 am
Location: st pete, florita
Contact:

Post by jimboloco » August 26th, 2005, 10:49 am

I wud like the url for the spooks for social sense

Does this point to a conspiracy to allow 9/11 to happen?

Foggy Bottom?
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]

User avatar
Zlatko Waterman
Posts: 1631
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Contact:

Post by Zlatko Waterman » August 26th, 2005, 2:44 pm

Here's the Cindy story for today-- AP wire and competent, but no context, of course. She's back in Crawford and will organize a nation-wide tour, ending in Washington D.C. on September 24th:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9075811/


I'm just posting the link because there's so much going on at AntiWar.com.

The site is reporting, from several angles and international perspectives, the incipient collapse of the Iraqi government, Parliament and constitutional draft. Al-Sadr's militia took to the streets yesterday and today and there was intra-factional fighting with machine guns and RPGs.

( link to the many stories -- with good context-- on this development-- as the deadline for Iraq's constituional draft is missed again . . .)


http://antiwar.com/



--Z


User avatar
Zlatko Waterman
Posts: 1631
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Contact:

Post by Zlatko Waterman » August 27th, 2005, 11:02 am

( A fine and clear exposition by Lee Shelton.

Bush has said we will be in Iraq fighting as long as he is President. Will that mean three-and-some more bloody, murderous years for no discernible goal?)




What Are We Fighting For?

by Lee Shelton
Over the last four years, the message sent by neoconservatives to the rest of the nation has been clear: Get behind the Bush administration's "war on terror" or be prepared to face the consequences. But when the grieving mother of a fallen U.S. soldier tops the neoconservative most wanted list of treasonous, terrorist-sympathizing, America-haters, you know something's up.

To paraphrase the Bard, "Methinks the neocons doth protest too much."Perhaps their violent outbursts against criticism of the war in Iraq are nothing more than feeble attempts to draw attention away from their blatant hypocrisy.

For a glimpse of this hypocrisy, look at what congressional Republicans had to say about sending American troops to the Balkans a few short years ago. Then Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Fla.) spoke out against Bill Clinton's proposal: "It is not within our power to solve all the world's problems," she remarked. She also said that she "could never look into the eyes of a mother or father or spouse or child of a soldier killed in Bosnia and say that American interests in Bosnia were worth their sacrifice."

Fowler's colleague, Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), also weighed in, saying, "People in my district want to know the exit strategy. Getting answers from the administration is part of our job." Other Republicans joined the protest. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said that troop deployment was "poorly considered and unlikely to achieve our desired ends," and Majority Whip Tom Delay said it was "just another bad idea in a foreign policy without a focus."

The amazing thing is that none of these people were criticized for being unpatriotic or anti-American. Their support for U.S. troops remained unquestioned, and they certainly weren't accused of lending aid and comfort to the enemy. My, how times have changed.

David Frum, former Bush speechwriter and clown prince of neoconservatism, attacked those on the anti-war right in a hit piece entitled Unpatriotic Conservatives: "They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country." In other words, speaking out against a Republican war waged by a Republican president makes you a traitor.

And that continues to be the neocon modus operandi. In an effort to silence any and all opposition to the so-called "war on terror" (or, if you prefer the updated nomenclature, the "global struggle against violent extremism"), they have resorted to name-calling, ad hominem attacks and all-out smear campaigns. But what else would we expect? The neocons are desperate because their cakewalk of a war has turned into the proverbial quagmire.

It has been two-and-a-half years since the U.S. invaded Iraq, and what do we have to show for it? Nearly 2,000 American soldiers are dead. Almost 14,000 have been wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed (and that's about as close to a real estimate as we'll get since the U.S. government isn't concerned with determining the extent of "collateral damage"). Thousands more Iraqis, including a sizeable chunk of Iraq's Christian population, have been displaced. Terrorist bombings are a daily occurrence, and the proposed Iraqi constitution promises a system of government based on Islamic law.

Otherwise, Iraq is the veritable democratic paradise President Bush promised it would be. Yet one cannot help but wonder why we went over there in the first place.

Oh, that's right. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them – possibly through his nonexistent network of al-Qaeda connections – against the United States.

Unfortunately for the war party, every reason articulated by the administration as justification for waging a preemptive, undeclared, unconstitutional war against a sovereign nation has been proven false. Still, they forge ahead, unable to admit their mistakes.

President Bush, having run out of excuses, now thinks we should continue fighting if for no other reason than to legitimize the sacrifice made by those who have already given their lives. In a recent speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention, he said, "We owe them something. We will finish the task that they gave their lives for. We will honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive … and win the war on terror."

But what about combating the evils that threaten liberty here at home? Let's forget for a moment that the war in Iraq was based entirely on lies. Even if everything the Bush administration has been saying is true, why should that excuse conservatives from addressing the domestic problem of a federal government that is growing bigger, more expensive and more intrusive by the minute?

Contrary to popular belief, tyranny isn't limited to Third World dictatorships. While Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are deciding when and where to strike next, the freedoms of U.S. citizens are being eroded.

We have the PATRIOT Act which makes every American a potential terrorist suspect. Campaign Finance Reform is crushing freedom of speech. Washington bureaucrats want your children to undergo mandatory mental health screenings. Thanks to the Real ID Act, we will all be forced to carry national ID cards. The Bush administration talks about fighting terrorists "over there," but has done nothing to secure our borders over here. You'd think that the neocons would at least feign interest in fighting to maintain the same liberties here at home they claim to be fighting for everywhere else in the world.

And yet the single defining issue that continues to separate the patriotic from the unpatriotic is the so-called "war on terror." I just have one question: If winning the "war on terror" means losing our freedom, then what exactly are we fighting for?

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 20607
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas

Post by stilltrucking » August 27th, 2005, 11:40 am

All good points but with tongue in cheek on the ID cards, is there one country in Europe that does not have ID cards for its citizens?
Yeah don't touch my guns and don't give me any stinking ID cards. What the hell is the liberal paranoia about ID cards about?
Those hijackers with the Virginia ID cards, that was a problem for years. One whistle blower was fired years before because she was making a stink about how flawed the system in Virginia was. Then after the shit hit the fan because someone found out that the hijackers had given twenty bucks to a wino to sign an affidavit stating they were who they said they were. After that the Bureaucrats s fixed the system real quick. What the fuck is wrong with ID cards. If it is good enough for the Europeans why not us. Does it infringe on our rugged individualism? I carry a federal drivers license. It has done a lot to eliminate the killer truck drivers that would go from state to state and get a new license until their next fatal accident. New Mexico was the easiest state to do that.

User avatar
Zlatko Waterman
Posts: 1631
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Contact:

Post by Zlatko Waterman » August 27th, 2005, 12:11 pm

Dear Still:

I think the libertarian ( more than the "liberal") alarm about ID cards revolves around the purpose and use of the card by the government. If the card merely identifies your profession and places you in it-- e.g. legal federal-certified truck driver without DUI convictions, etc..-- fit to cross state lines, etc..-- or whether it identifies you as an American of Lebanese extraction who visited some mosque in 1979 where congregants opposed to current US policies in Iran ( just before the Iranian Revolution) were known to meet.

Said cards, in this digital age, could be used to store a list of what you read, what you watch, where you go, and whom you know. It would be mandatory ( particularly if you were a "green card" resident, but really for everyone) to submit this card to machines periodically, and even without your direct knowledge-- that is, a habitual use you might be required to make of the card-- to enter and leave public conveyances-- buses, trains, etc..-- which could ( and this is presently possible technically) imprint and add information to your magnetic strip as well as read it.

Just some of the implications of new federal ID cards.

Our cards are not going to be used to identify us for federal one-payer health insurance of any national ( read: "communistic") sort, of course.

It's true the Europeans and the Brits aren't as exercised about such cards. But the English never saw a surveillance camera they didn't like. Such cameras have been in use for many years in Britain. Ditto secret microphones in many public locations.

Just a little radical paranoia from,


--Z

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 20607
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas

Post by stilltrucking » August 27th, 2005, 12:48 pm

Ahhh so. Ok but we got those social security cards. Virginia got sued all the way to the supreme court because they were using SS numbers as a driver's License number. Every time you wrote a check someone had your life history. Yeah I can see the concern. Hurts my head to think about the implications. Appreciate the comeback.

microbe
Posts: 126
Joined: August 27th, 2005, 2:48 am
Location: England

Post by microbe » August 27th, 2005, 3:25 pm

ID cards is a looming issue here in the UK. Most people don't want them and they certainly don't want to pay over a hundred pounds for the privilege of owning one, which has been suggested will be the cost. As the debate continues it looks like the opposition to ID cards will grow. It seems to be accepted that they would not have stopped the London bombings and would be a hugely expensive waste of money.

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 20607
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas

Post by stilltrucking » August 27th, 2005, 4:16 pm

Not sure if you now all the gory details about 9/11 but the hijackers that took the plane from Logan airport in Boston five “middle eastern looking men” walked in and bought five one way tickets to LA. They paid fourteen thousand dollars in cash money. Nobdoy pays cash money for airline tickets. Nobody buys one way tickets to LA. But that did not raise an eyebrow. I wonder if ID cards would have mattered. We all ready have ID cards in a way. Every man woman and child in the US is issued a Social Security Card at birth. The data is being collected through out our lives. The more paranoid among us are expecting to have a microchip implanted in our skin that will store the information
Not to change the subject.
Have you ever read The History of The English Speaking People? That book was an eye opener for me. Had this notion of you all as very polite very proper people sipping tea with your pinkies extended.

Post Reply

Return to “Culture, Politics, Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests