and he has been the greatest recruiting tool al Qaeda has ever had.
Thanks alot, Junior.
U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq creates training zone for terrorism
Sunday, May 27, 2007
By Ron Kramer
President Bush, U.S. Sen. John McCain and other supporters of the war on Iraq continue to deceive the American people by mischaracterizing the situation there. War supporters argue that the war in Iraq is the central front in a war against "terrorism'' and that if we don't fight the terrorists there we will have to fight them here later. This is a ludicrous assertion.
This falsehood goes back to the lies advanced by the Bush administration in the propaganda campaign to market the war that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and had operational ties to al-Qaida. There was no evidence of such ties or involvement.
We must understand the violence in Iraq is not caused by ``terrorists'' but by the American military occupation. Our presence there does not prevent violence -- it causes it. The ``enemy'' we are fighting in Iraq is the Iraqi people who are resisting the belligerent occupation of their country, as many of us would do. The ``insurgents'' are various Sunni and some Shiite militias who are resisting the American occupation and the puppet government that the United States is attempting to impose.
There are a small number of foreign jihadists, including some members of al-Qaida, who have come into Iraq since the U.S. invasion. But they are a very small presence, only 1,000 to 2,000 strong according to the Iraq Study Group. A February report of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency noted that "attacks by terrorist groups account for only a fraction of insurgent violence.''
According to most experts on the Middle East, this small group of foreign terrorists has no ability to come to the U.S., no ability to take over the Iraqi government and will be driven from Iraq as soon as the U.S. leaves. As University of Michigan Middle Eastern history professor Juan Cole points out, "Turkey, Jordan and Iran are not going to put up with an al-Qaida stronghold on their borders; nor would Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis.''
Rather than fighting terrorism, the invasion of Iraq has caused more terrorism. In a recent report, the Oxford Research Group noted that ``treating Iraq as part of the war on terror only spawned new terror in the region and created a combat training zone for jihadists.'' Thus, continuing this war makes us less safe from future terrorism, not more.
Again, it is critical to understand that the central source of the violence in Iraq is the illegal United States invasion and occupation. The invasion and occupation has caused the deaths of an estimated 650,000 Iraqis according to the best scientific study published in The Lancet. It has resulted in more than 3,000 American deaths.
Sunni insurgents resisting the brutal actions of the occupation and its administration attack U.S. forces and Shiite collaborators. Shiite militias take revenge on Sunnis. Many of these Shiite militias are a significant part of the Iraqi army and police force. In fact, as Tom Hayden points out, the new de facto U.S. policy in Iraq is ``to support, fund, arm and train a sectarian Shi'a-Kurdish state, one engaged in ethnic cleansing, mass detention and murder of Sunni Arabs.'' U.S. support of this Shi'a-Kurdish state allows the current Iraqi government to avoid compromise.
The violence will continue until the American occupation ends. As Cole argues, ``The key to preventing an intensified civil war is U.S. withdrawal from the equation so as to force the parties to an accommodation. Therefore, the United States should announce its intention to withdraw its military forces from Iraq, which will bring Sunnis to the negotiating table and put pressure on Kurds and Shiites to seek a compromise with them.''
Furthermore, as it withdraws its military forces, the U.S. should work cooperatively with the United Nations to convene a regional conference, that must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, for the purpose of developing a security, stabilization and reconstruction plan for Iraq along the lines suggested by George McGovern and William Polk in their book, "Out of Iraq.''
Some commentators think nothing can be done to salvage Iraq at this point. That may be true, but ending the occupation offers the best chance to stop the violence and give Iraqis a chance to determine their own fate.
Ron Kramer, of Kalamazoo, is a professor of sociology at Western Michigan University and is a founding member of Kalamazoo Nonviolent Opponents of War (KNOW).
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Monday, May 28, 2007
Alabama Has Lost It!
My home state.
It figures.
It is as predictable as the sunrise.
Have a national crisis, and Alabama goes off the deep end every time.
Ala. Homeland Security: Antiwar Activists May be Terrorists
Sunday, May 27th, 2007
in News by Eric Garris
The Alabama Department of Homeland Security has shut down a Web site it operated that included antiwar, pro-life, and gay rights organizations in a list of groups that could include terrorists.
The Web site identified different types of terrorists, and included a list of groups it believed could spawn terrorists. The list also included environmentalists, animal rights advocates and abortion opponents.
The site included the groups under a description of what it called “single-issue” terrorists. That group includes people who feel they are trying to create a better world, the Web site said. It said that in some communities, law enforcement officers consider certain single issue groups to be a threat.
Read more… (It gets worse)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Some Interesting Insights: The NeoCon Warmongers
Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly has a great recap of what former Pentagon spy-master Pat Lang and former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson had to say at a University of District of Columbia forum on May 7th.
Here's some Feith fun from Pat Lang:
Patrick Lang told a hilarious story the other night, for example, about a job interview he had with Douglas Feith, a key architect of the invasion of Iraq.
It was at the beginning of the first Bush term. Lang had been in charge of the Middle East, South Asia and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s. Later he ran the Pentagon's worldwide spying operations.
In early 2001, his name was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon's office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency. Lang had also been a Green Beret, with three tours in South Vietnam.
One of the people he had to impress was Feith, the Defense Department's number three official and a leading player in the clique of neoconservatives who had taken over the government's national security apparatus.
Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.
"He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me," Lang recalled, "which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers -- they always had briefing papers, you know -- about me.
"He's looking at this stuff, and he says, 'I've heard of you. I heard of you.'
"He says, 'Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?'
"And I said, 'Yeah, that's really true.'
"That's too bad," Feith said.
The audience howled.
"That was the end of the interview," Lang said. "I'm not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out."
Feith, of course, like the administration's other Israel-connected hawks, didn't want "Arabists" like Lang muddying the road to Baghdad, from where -- according to the Bush administration theory -- overthrowing Saddam Hussein would ignite mass demands for Western-style, pro-U.S. democracies across the entire Middle East.
And some Lang on Wolfowitz:
"I remember talking to [Paul] Wolfowitz, in his office, in the Pentagon, and telling him -- this was after the propaganda build up had started, before the war. I said, 'You know, these guys are not going to welcome you.'
"He said, 'Why?'
I said, 'For one thing, these guys detest foreigners, and the few who really like you are the least representative of the various breeds of people there. They're going to fight you, then, if you occupy the place there's going to be a massive insurgency.'"
"He said, 'No, no, they'll be glad to see us,'"
Lang continued. "This will start the process of revolution around the Middle East that will transform everything.'
No, Lang told Wolfowitz, "that's not gonna happen. It's just an impossibility. They're not like that. They don't want to be us."
Not everyone agrees with all of Lang's views about the Arab world, but on this issue he was prescient, of course, as were almost all experts on the region outside of the neocon faithful.
How come we learned so much of this dispute only after the war?
And Lawrence Wilkerson on Tenet and "Curveball":
Wilkerson provides a damning clue.
In February 2003, Powell's top aide relates, he "spent five of the most intimate days of my life, and five nights, without sleeping, as did my team, staring into . . . the face" of George Tenet, Tenet's deputy John McLaughlin, and other top CIA officials working on Iraq, at the agency's headquarters at Langley.
It was the eve of Powell's now infamous speech at the United Nations detailing Iraq's alleged biological, chemical and nuclear programs.
"One of the things Secretary Powell and I told Mr. Tenet and Mr. McLaughlin at the outset of our frenetic five or six days, trying to get ready for the U.N., was 'multiple sources.' We will not take anything and put it in this presentation, unless there are multiple, independently corroborated sources for the items we're putting in the testimony," Wilkerson said.
"That was the going-in position."
Subsequently, he learned that there was but "a single source for the mobile biological laboratories; that his code name was Curveball; and that there were several very key dissents as to this individual's testimony, during or before the preparation of the secretary of State."
Curveball, an Iraqi refugee, turned out to be a liar.
"None of that, ladies and gentlemen, none of that was revealed to the secretary of State, or to me, or to any member of my team, by either John McLaughlin or George Tenet," Wilkerson said.
Tenet says in his memoir that he never heard of any serious questions about Curveball.
As readers of this column know , however, Tenet's chief of European operations, Tyler Drumheller, insists he sent a flurry of warnings about Curveball to Tenet's deputies.
Both can't be right.
"Either George Tenet is lying through his teeth, or Tyler Drumheller is lying through his teeth," Wilkerson says, "with regard to one of the most important pillars of Secretary Powell's presentation at the United Nations: the mobile biological laboratories."
We're waiting now for a third CIA official to come forth with an answer.
Lots of people are dying because of the errors and idiocy perpetrated by Feith, Wolfowitz and yes, Tenet too.
-- Steve Clemons
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Here's some Feith fun from Pat Lang:
Patrick Lang told a hilarious story the other night, for example, about a job interview he had with Douglas Feith, a key architect of the invasion of Iraq.
It was at the beginning of the first Bush term. Lang had been in charge of the Middle East, South Asia and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s. Later he ran the Pentagon's worldwide spying operations.
In early 2001, his name was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon's office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency. Lang had also been a Green Beret, with three tours in South Vietnam.
One of the people he had to impress was Feith, the Defense Department's number three official and a leading player in the clique of neoconservatives who had taken over the government's national security apparatus.
Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.
"He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me," Lang recalled, "which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers -- they always had briefing papers, you know -- about me.
"He's looking at this stuff, and he says, 'I've heard of you. I heard of you.'
"He says, 'Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?'
"And I said, 'Yeah, that's really true.'
"That's too bad," Feith said.
The audience howled.
"That was the end of the interview," Lang said. "I'm not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out."
Feith, of course, like the administration's other Israel-connected hawks, didn't want "Arabists" like Lang muddying the road to Baghdad, from where -- according to the Bush administration theory -- overthrowing Saddam Hussein would ignite mass demands for Western-style, pro-U.S. democracies across the entire Middle East.
And some Lang on Wolfowitz:
"I remember talking to [Paul] Wolfowitz, in his office, in the Pentagon, and telling him -- this was after the propaganda build up had started, before the war. I said, 'You know, these guys are not going to welcome you.'
"He said, 'Why?'
I said, 'For one thing, these guys detest foreigners, and the few who really like you are the least representative of the various breeds of people there. They're going to fight you, then, if you occupy the place there's going to be a massive insurgency.'"
"He said, 'No, no, they'll be glad to see us,'"
Lang continued. "This will start the process of revolution around the Middle East that will transform everything.'
No, Lang told Wolfowitz, "that's not gonna happen. It's just an impossibility. They're not like that. They don't want to be us."
Not everyone agrees with all of Lang's views about the Arab world, but on this issue he was prescient, of course, as were almost all experts on the region outside of the neocon faithful.
How come we learned so much of this dispute only after the war?
And Lawrence Wilkerson on Tenet and "Curveball":
Wilkerson provides a damning clue.
In February 2003, Powell's top aide relates, he "spent five of the most intimate days of my life, and five nights, without sleeping, as did my team, staring into . . . the face" of George Tenet, Tenet's deputy John McLaughlin, and other top CIA officials working on Iraq, at the agency's headquarters at Langley.
It was the eve of Powell's now infamous speech at the United Nations detailing Iraq's alleged biological, chemical and nuclear programs.
"One of the things Secretary Powell and I told Mr. Tenet and Mr. McLaughlin at the outset of our frenetic five or six days, trying to get ready for the U.N., was 'multiple sources.' We will not take anything and put it in this presentation, unless there are multiple, independently corroborated sources for the items we're putting in the testimony," Wilkerson said.
"That was the going-in position."
Subsequently, he learned that there was but "a single source for the mobile biological laboratories; that his code name was Curveball; and that there were several very key dissents as to this individual's testimony, during or before the preparation of the secretary of State."
Curveball, an Iraqi refugee, turned out to be a liar.
"None of that, ladies and gentlemen, none of that was revealed to the secretary of State, or to me, or to any member of my team, by either John McLaughlin or George Tenet," Wilkerson said.
Tenet says in his memoir that he never heard of any serious questions about Curveball.
As readers of this column know , however, Tenet's chief of European operations, Tyler Drumheller, insists he sent a flurry of warnings about Curveball to Tenet's deputies.
Both can't be right.
"Either George Tenet is lying through his teeth, or Tyler Drumheller is lying through his teeth," Wilkerson says, "with regard to one of the most important pillars of Secretary Powell's presentation at the United Nations: the mobile biological laboratories."
We're waiting now for a third CIA official to come forth with an answer.
Lots of people are dying because of the errors and idiocy perpetrated by Feith, Wolfowitz and yes, Tenet too.
-- Steve Clemons
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Giuliani Is Going Down: News Flash From Wingnuttia
Can't help but find this amusing.
There is something quite disturbing about Guiliani. Some in NYC like to compare him to Hitler. I think he is America's very own Joe Stalin.
There is also something terribly disgusting about Guiliani. That would be the fact that he has made more money off 9/11 than almost anyone outside the administration.
He believes he owns the horror of that day.
Perhaps, we should make him own it. Perhaps we should shove it down his throat.
He is a disgusting little man.
People For the American Way
Back in 2005, when Harriet Miers was humiliated and forced to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Republican Party's right-wing base was largely responsible. Having torpedoed their own president's nominee for being insufficiently zealous regarding their social and legal agenda, the Right forced President Bush to send them someone whose ideological commitment could not be doubted, which he did by nominating Samuel Alito.
Now, heading into 2008, the Right is facing what some of them see as an even more ominous threat: the prospect that Rudy Giuliani could win the GOP presidential nomination. And just as they did with Miers, right-wing activists - especially anti-choice Catholic ones - are gearing up to launch an all-out attack in an effort to deny Giuliani the nomination…read on…
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
There is something quite disturbing about Guiliani. Some in NYC like to compare him to Hitler. I think he is America's very own Joe Stalin.
There is also something terribly disgusting about Guiliani. That would be the fact that he has made more money off 9/11 than almost anyone outside the administration.
He believes he owns the horror of that day.
Perhaps, we should make him own it. Perhaps we should shove it down his throat.
He is a disgusting little man.
People For the American Way
Back in 2005, when Harriet Miers was humiliated and forced to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Republican Party's right-wing base was largely responsible. Having torpedoed their own president's nominee for being insufficiently zealous regarding their social and legal agenda, the Right forced President Bush to send them someone whose ideological commitment could not be doubted, which he did by nominating Samuel Alito.
Now, heading into 2008, the Right is facing what some of them see as an even more ominous threat: the prospect that Rudy Giuliani could win the GOP presidential nomination. And just as they did with Miers, right-wing activists - especially anti-choice Catholic ones - are gearing up to launch an all-out attack in an effort to deny Giuliani the nomination…read on…
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Creation Museum: A Monument to Chosen Stupidity
It is becoming more and more apparent by the day, that the U.S.A. should not be a super-power. This museum is just one more indication of why that is true, though a serious indicator it is.
It's a crying shame that this country has come to this. With people, right here in this country, worried about how they are going to feed their kids, from day to day, $27 million is spent by so-called Christians on this momument to bullshit.
George Bush says that tax cuts are good because the tax-payer knows better how to spend his money. If this is any example of the taxpayers' brilliance, I say raise taxes immediately
This is the kind of thing that makes me doubt this country can survive, let alone be a super-power. Then, there is the immediate thought; in order to survive, we cannot be a superpower or, God forbid, another evil empire.
From what I can tell, 1/3 of Americans are, now, the lunatic fringe and they have friends in high places.
The Creation Museum, a $27-million tourist attraction for those who don’t care for modern science, will open its doors this morning near Cincinnati.
The LA Times had an interesting editorial on the facility.
Before the first visitor risks succumbing to the museum’s animatronic balderdash — dinosaurs and humans actually coexisted! the Grand Canyon was carved by the great flood described in Genesis! — we’d like to clear up a few things:
“The Flintstones” is a cartoon, not a documentary. Fred and Wilma? Those woolly mammoth vacuum cleaners? All make-believe.
Science is under assault, and that calls for bold truths. Here’s another:
The Earth is round.
The museum, a 60,000-square-foot menace to 21st century scientific advancement, is the handiwork of Answers in Genesis, a leader in the “young Earth” movement. Young Earthers believe the world is about 6,000 years old, as opposed to the 4.5 billion years estimated by the world’s credible scientific community. This would be risible if anti-evolution forces were confined to a lunatic fringe, but they are not. Witness the recent revelation that three of the Republican candidates for president do not believe in evolution. Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together.
Adults have to pay $19.95 to enter the museum and hear pseudo-science. Those same adults can stop by a public library and check out books about real science for free.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Our Only Word About Foulwell
Out of all the words written about Jerry Falwell since his death, about 10 days ago, Timothy Noah's summed up our feelings best.
They say not to speak ill of the dead.
My old friend Frank once said, "I couldn't stand her while she was alive and I doubt that her death will change that."
I tend to agree with Frank.
Jerry Falwell couldn't even leave cartoon characters alone.
He was a fruitcake; one who drove more people away from religion than he ever recruited. He did them a favor.
Buh-bye, Jerry, and good-riddance
Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
The right's holy fool.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 6:56 PM ET
God, they say, is love, but the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died May 15, hit the jackpot trafficking in small-minded condemnation. The controversies Falwell generated followed a predictable loop. 1) Falwell would say something hateful or clownish about some person or group associated with liberalism. 2) A public outcry would ensue. 3) Falwell would apologize and retract the offending comment. 4) Falwell would repeat the comment, slightly rephrased.
For 20 years, evangelicals have chided the mainstream media for treating Falwell's ghastly pronouncements as news; Falwell, they often confide in private, ceased being a significant figure well before he left his signature political organization, the Moral Majority, in 1987. If so, someone forgot to tell Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., who as a presidential candidate in 2000 condemned Falwell's intolerance ("The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country") but last year, as a presidential candidate positioning for 2008, made peace with Falwell and gave a commencement address ("We have nothing to fear from each other") to the 2006 graduating class at Falwell's Liberty University. On news of Falwell's death, McCain said in a statement, "Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country."
Nonsense. He was a bigot, a reactionary, a liar, and a fool. Herewith, a Falwell sampler.
On Sept. 11: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' " (So, Jerry, are you saying that Osama is God's mesenger to the U.S.A.? Maybe that explains why Bush has no interest in finding him. He is a holy messenger, right, Jerry?
On AIDS: "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals." (If AIDS is God's wrath, then it must be his wrath on everyone except Nuns and Lesbians)
On homosexuality: "I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual. But I believe that we have the ability to experiment in every direction. Experimentation can lead to habitual practice, and then to a lifestyle. But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual." (What an idiot! Does Falwell really believe that anyone in his or her right mind would choose homsexuality, given that they have to co-exist with people like him?)
On Martin Luther King Jr.: "I must personally say that I do question the sincerity and nonviolent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations."
On Martin Luther King Jr., four decades later: "You know, I supported Martin Luther King Jr., who did practice civil disobedience." (A Liar and a hypocrite)
On public education: "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again, and Christians will be running them." (Hello, Dark Ages!)
On the separation of church and state: "There is no separation of church and state." (The hell there isn't, and the ones who try to bring down that wall will have a war on their hands.)
On feminists: "I listen to feminists and all these radical gals. ... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem." (How totally insecure a man you must have been, Jerry?)
On global warming: "I can tell you, our grandchildren will laugh at those who predicted global warming. We'll be in global cooling by then, if the Lord hasn't returned. I don't believe a moment of it. The whole thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability." (Holy Crap! Where to begin? By the time your preznit gets through, your grandchildren, if they survive, may well be mutants. The Christ has already returned, Jerry, and you flipped out and you did not recognize that great spirit of light and love. Who would try to destroy America's free enterprise system with tales of global catastrophe? There are easier ways of doing it than getting people to believe tall tales. It's hard enough to get them to believe the truth about the Bush administration. Just about every environmental scientist in the world agrees with the theory of climate change. Too bad you won't be here to see it. Guess you didn't believe all those tall tales about fast food either, eh?
On Bishop Desmond Tutu: "I think he's a phony, period, as far as representing the black people of South Africa."
On Islam: "I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, that he was a violent man, a man of war." (But, Jerry, the only difference between you and Muhammed, as you understand him, is that you like wars that others fight. Muhammed fought his own.)
On Jews: "In my opinion, the Antichrist will be a counterfeit of the true Christ, which means that he will be male and Jewish, since Jesus was male and Jewish." (Does this make any sense to anyone? Being male and Jewish did in no way define the Christ. Still doesn't.)
Rest in peace, you blowhard.
AMEN!
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
They say not to speak ill of the dead.
My old friend Frank once said, "I couldn't stand her while she was alive and I doubt that her death will change that."
I tend to agree with Frank.
Jerry Falwell couldn't even leave cartoon characters alone.
He was a fruitcake; one who drove more people away from religion than he ever recruited. He did them a favor.
Buh-bye, Jerry, and good-riddance
Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade
The right's holy fool.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 6:56 PM ET
God, they say, is love, but the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died May 15, hit the jackpot trafficking in small-minded condemnation. The controversies Falwell generated followed a predictable loop. 1) Falwell would say something hateful or clownish about some person or group associated with liberalism. 2) A public outcry would ensue. 3) Falwell would apologize and retract the offending comment. 4) Falwell would repeat the comment, slightly rephrased.
For 20 years, evangelicals have chided the mainstream media for treating Falwell's ghastly pronouncements as news; Falwell, they often confide in private, ceased being a significant figure well before he left his signature political organization, the Moral Majority, in 1987. If so, someone forgot to tell Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., who as a presidential candidate in 2000 condemned Falwell's intolerance ("The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country") but last year, as a presidential candidate positioning for 2008, made peace with Falwell and gave a commencement address ("We have nothing to fear from each other") to the 2006 graduating class at Falwell's Liberty University. On news of Falwell's death, McCain said in a statement, "Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country."
Nonsense. He was a bigot, a reactionary, a liar, and a fool. Herewith, a Falwell sampler.
On Sept. 11: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' " (So, Jerry, are you saying that Osama is God's mesenger to the U.S.A.? Maybe that explains why Bush has no interest in finding him. He is a holy messenger, right, Jerry?
On AIDS: "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals." (If AIDS is God's wrath, then it must be his wrath on everyone except Nuns and Lesbians)
On homosexuality: "I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual. But I believe that we have the ability to experiment in every direction. Experimentation can lead to habitual practice, and then to a lifestyle. But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual." (What an idiot! Does Falwell really believe that anyone in his or her right mind would choose homsexuality, given that they have to co-exist with people like him?)
On Martin Luther King Jr.: "I must personally say that I do question the sincerity and nonviolent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations."
On Martin Luther King Jr., four decades later: "You know, I supported Martin Luther King Jr., who did practice civil disobedience." (A Liar and a hypocrite)
On public education: "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again, and Christians will be running them." (Hello, Dark Ages!)
On the separation of church and state: "There is no separation of church and state." (The hell there isn't, and the ones who try to bring down that wall will have a war on their hands.)
On feminists: "I listen to feminists and all these radical gals. ... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem." (How totally insecure a man you must have been, Jerry?)
On global warming: "I can tell you, our grandchildren will laugh at those who predicted global warming. We'll be in global cooling by then, if the Lord hasn't returned. I don't believe a moment of it. The whole thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability." (Holy Crap! Where to begin? By the time your preznit gets through, your grandchildren, if they survive, may well be mutants. The Christ has already returned, Jerry, and you flipped out and you did not recognize that great spirit of light and love. Who would try to destroy America's free enterprise system with tales of global catastrophe? There are easier ways of doing it than getting people to believe tall tales. It's hard enough to get them to believe the truth about the Bush administration. Just about every environmental scientist in the world agrees with the theory of climate change. Too bad you won't be here to see it. Guess you didn't believe all those tall tales about fast food either, eh?
On Bishop Desmond Tutu: "I think he's a phony, period, as far as representing the black people of South Africa."
On Islam: "I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, that he was a violent man, a man of war." (But, Jerry, the only difference between you and Muhammed, as you understand him, is that you like wars that others fight. Muhammed fought his own.)
On Jews: "In my opinion, the Antichrist will be a counterfeit of the true Christ, which means that he will be male and Jewish, since Jesus was male and Jewish." (Does this make any sense to anyone? Being male and Jewish did in no way define the Christ. Still doesn't.)
Rest in peace, you blowhard.
AMEN!
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Beware, The Protecter
Protecting America
May 19, 2007 - 9:19pm.
Phil Hoskins
It is often the case that those who claim to be protecting our nation are the very most dangerous threats to the people and the principles upon which this nation was founded. Among the greatest of those threats are fundamentalism and globalism.
There is no political will to confront either so what we hear about are false issues and what we get instead of leadership is posturing and platitudes.
With little public discussion or awareness, Democratic leadership has announced an agreement about upcoming trade negotiations without bothering to let any of us in on the contents of that agreement. What is really going on is that the Democrats are positioning themselves to get an infusion of cash for the elections of 2008 from big business just as the Republicans have done during their return to power in the past 15 years.
Under ‘fast track” rules, trade deals cannot be subjected to real discussions, modifications or amendment once they reach Congress but can only be voted upon “up or down.” What this means is that there is no real democracy with regard to one of the most important issues of our time – the globalization of our economy. Then again, given the servitude in which most members of Congress are held by Wal-Mart and other huge corporate interests, real debate is unlikely even if fast tracking was repealed.
Ever since the Democratic Party was seized by Bill Clinton and the “New” Democrats, the party that at one time put forth the interests of working class citizens there is no opposition to big money and corporate interests. With the recent trade “agreement” Rep. Rangel has positioned his party as a real alternative to the GOP for off shore, anti-worker corporations to get the big bucks the coming election will require.
The most direct and likely beneficiary of this will be Hillary Clinton, who while a member of Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors failed to utter a word against that company’s anti-union efforts. The senator will be, like her husband, a front for big business and the methodical transfer of jobs to the third world.
It must be remembered that the people who pay for free trade are American workers, all for the benefit of corporate shareholders and executives, many of whom are not even American. We have been sold a bill of goods about “free” trade and tariffs. How has that worked out? Real wages have been declining since the Clinton trade agreements were approved. While the stock market soars, workers are earning less than ever and basic costs soar.
It is time to reassess our trade policies and make certain that workers are protected. If that means lower share values and smaller executive compensation packages so be it.
Fundamentalism
Now on to the other great threat to American values, fundamentalism. One such threat is small in this country at this time even though it is looming larger all the time in Europe. That is the fundamentalist movement of Islam. In Europe, a tradition for inclusion and letting each person live their life free of interference is being turned on its head by the immigration of Islamic ideologues who insist on Sharia law as the only “true” religion. This ideology is intolerant of any variations and seeks to destroy the very tolerance that gave them a place to live and practice their faith.
We have our own native version in the form of fundamentalist Christianity. Less violent for the most part, it shares an intolerance for other lifestyles and practices with its Islamic brothers. Both are paternalistic, homophobic and misogynist. The Christian version has done its best to seize control of the Republican Party in recent years, although there are signs the effort may have seen its peak.
Despite the effort of fundamentalists to claim otherwise, one of the key elements of our traditions is the separation of religion and government. Fundamentalists do not honor this principle and instead insist that everyone adhere to their strict rules and precepts. This is un-American in every sense of the word.
Where are the politicians speaking out about these issues? Few dare raise their voice and those who do fail the test of consistency. When are Muslim leaders going to teach their fundamentalist co-religionists that Sharia law is un-American? When is the republican party going to tell the same thing to those who would deny all Americans basic freedoms, and that that the party of Lincoln will not be seized by those who sell hate as a religious value?
It is time we stop putting up with the rape of America in the name of corporate profits and the rape of the Constitution in the name of religion.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
May 19, 2007 - 9:19pm.
Phil Hoskins
It is often the case that those who claim to be protecting our nation are the very most dangerous threats to the people and the principles upon which this nation was founded. Among the greatest of those threats are fundamentalism and globalism.
There is no political will to confront either so what we hear about are false issues and what we get instead of leadership is posturing and platitudes.
With little public discussion or awareness, Democratic leadership has announced an agreement about upcoming trade negotiations without bothering to let any of us in on the contents of that agreement. What is really going on is that the Democrats are positioning themselves to get an infusion of cash for the elections of 2008 from big business just as the Republicans have done during their return to power in the past 15 years.
Under ‘fast track” rules, trade deals cannot be subjected to real discussions, modifications or amendment once they reach Congress but can only be voted upon “up or down.” What this means is that there is no real democracy with regard to one of the most important issues of our time – the globalization of our economy. Then again, given the servitude in which most members of Congress are held by Wal-Mart and other huge corporate interests, real debate is unlikely even if fast tracking was repealed.
Ever since the Democratic Party was seized by Bill Clinton and the “New” Democrats, the party that at one time put forth the interests of working class citizens there is no opposition to big money and corporate interests. With the recent trade “agreement” Rep. Rangel has positioned his party as a real alternative to the GOP for off shore, anti-worker corporations to get the big bucks the coming election will require.
The most direct and likely beneficiary of this will be Hillary Clinton, who while a member of Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors failed to utter a word against that company’s anti-union efforts. The senator will be, like her husband, a front for big business and the methodical transfer of jobs to the third world.
It must be remembered that the people who pay for free trade are American workers, all for the benefit of corporate shareholders and executives, many of whom are not even American. We have been sold a bill of goods about “free” trade and tariffs. How has that worked out? Real wages have been declining since the Clinton trade agreements were approved. While the stock market soars, workers are earning less than ever and basic costs soar.
It is time to reassess our trade policies and make certain that workers are protected. If that means lower share values and smaller executive compensation packages so be it.
Fundamentalism
Now on to the other great threat to American values, fundamentalism. One such threat is small in this country at this time even though it is looming larger all the time in Europe. That is the fundamentalist movement of Islam. In Europe, a tradition for inclusion and letting each person live their life free of interference is being turned on its head by the immigration of Islamic ideologues who insist on Sharia law as the only “true” religion. This ideology is intolerant of any variations and seeks to destroy the very tolerance that gave them a place to live and practice their faith.
We have our own native version in the form of fundamentalist Christianity. Less violent for the most part, it shares an intolerance for other lifestyles and practices with its Islamic brothers. Both are paternalistic, homophobic and misogynist. The Christian version has done its best to seize control of the Republican Party in recent years, although there are signs the effort may have seen its peak.
Despite the effort of fundamentalists to claim otherwise, one of the key elements of our traditions is the separation of religion and government. Fundamentalists do not honor this principle and instead insist that everyone adhere to their strict rules and precepts. This is un-American in every sense of the word.
Where are the politicians speaking out about these issues? Few dare raise their voice and those who do fail the test of consistency. When are Muslim leaders going to teach their fundamentalist co-religionists that Sharia law is un-American? When is the republican party going to tell the same thing to those who would deny all Americans basic freedoms, and that that the party of Lincoln will not be seized by those who sell hate as a religious value?
It is time we stop putting up with the rape of America in the name of corporate profits and the rape of the Constitution in the name of religion.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Hillary...Not Surprising
Gupta-gate: Hillary Clinton at the pillory
May 26, 2007 - 7:55am.
Hal Brown
By HAL BROWN
The Clinton's roadmap to a presidential dynasty seems to have been drawn in part by Republican fat cats. How else can we interpret their acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from Vinod Gupta, a multimillionaire donor to all things Clinton, whose own company sold consumer data to telemarketing criminals who used it to steal money from elderly Americans.
Even supporters of Hillary Clinton are aware that in order to win the nomination, let alone the presidency, she has to overcome the public perception of being driven by cold, calculating ambition.
Could she be a ruthless politician like George W. Bush whose quest for power is not far removed from an amoral capitalist obsessed with amassing wealth? Could she be following an ethical compass whose arrow always points north even when she's headed south?
According to the New York Times, Mr. Gupta's company...
paid $146,866 to ferry the Clintons, Mr. Gupta and others to Acapulco and back, court records show. During the next four years, infoUSA paid Mr. Clinton more than $2 million for consulting services, and spent almost $900,000 to fly him around the world for his presidential foundation work and to fly Mrs. Clinton to campaign events. (Read article here)
a quote from the New York Times article that has the Bush ring to it:
"An entrepreneur from India, Mr. Gupta, 60, founded infoUSA in Omaha in 1972 and built it into a publicly traded company with more than $400 million in revenue. Along the way, he nurtured a taste for politics, becoming a major Democratic fund-raiser and a Lincoln Bedroom guest in the Clinton White House.
Before leaving office, Mr. Clinton appointed Mr. Gupta to the board of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Earlier, Mr. Clinton had nominated him for two minor ambassadorships, which Mr. Gupta declined because of business commitments.
Even if infoUSA was a pristine pure company operating at the highest level of ethics, and all Gupta did was open his wallet for the Clintons to dip into so he could bask in the afterglow of power, and get a chance to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom (which he did), the Clinton's behavior looks so ..... Bush Republican.
If John Edwards can be held to task and mocked for a $400 haircuts and living in a mansion, what will be the public reaction to Billary's cozy financial relationship with a millionaire who engaged in a tawdry scheme to bilk the elderly.
How will both her supporters and critics react to one of her surrogates, Phil Singer's public rationalization of her accepting a $146,666 private jet trip by saying she “complied with all the relevant ethics rules” on accepting private air travel.
The relevant rules are that senators and candidates make reimbursement at a rate equal to that of a first-class ticket. I know first class is pricey, but unless she flew to the moon I can't image that a trip anywhere on earth would cost $146 thousand.
Those who want to see a Democrat as our next president better hope that Barak Obama doesn't have any gold plated skeletons in his closet.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
May 26, 2007 - 7:55am.
Hal Brown
By HAL BROWN
The Clinton's roadmap to a presidential dynasty seems to have been drawn in part by Republican fat cats. How else can we interpret their acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from Vinod Gupta, a multimillionaire donor to all things Clinton, whose own company sold consumer data to telemarketing criminals who used it to steal money from elderly Americans.
Even supporters of Hillary Clinton are aware that in order to win the nomination, let alone the presidency, she has to overcome the public perception of being driven by cold, calculating ambition.
Could she be a ruthless politician like George W. Bush whose quest for power is not far removed from an amoral capitalist obsessed with amassing wealth? Could she be following an ethical compass whose arrow always points north even when she's headed south?
According to the New York Times, Mr. Gupta's company...
paid $146,866 to ferry the Clintons, Mr. Gupta and others to Acapulco and back, court records show. During the next four years, infoUSA paid Mr. Clinton more than $2 million for consulting services, and spent almost $900,000 to fly him around the world for his presidential foundation work and to fly Mrs. Clinton to campaign events. (Read article here)
a quote from the New York Times article that has the Bush ring to it:
"An entrepreneur from India, Mr. Gupta, 60, founded infoUSA in Omaha in 1972 and built it into a publicly traded company with more than $400 million in revenue. Along the way, he nurtured a taste for politics, becoming a major Democratic fund-raiser and a Lincoln Bedroom guest in the Clinton White House.
Before leaving office, Mr. Clinton appointed Mr. Gupta to the board of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Earlier, Mr. Clinton had nominated him for two minor ambassadorships, which Mr. Gupta declined because of business commitments.
Even if infoUSA was a pristine pure company operating at the highest level of ethics, and all Gupta did was open his wallet for the Clintons to dip into so he could bask in the afterglow of power, and get a chance to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom (which he did), the Clinton's behavior looks so ..... Bush Republican.
If John Edwards can be held to task and mocked for a $400 haircuts and living in a mansion, what will be the public reaction to Billary's cozy financial relationship with a millionaire who engaged in a tawdry scheme to bilk the elderly.
How will both her supporters and critics react to one of her surrogates, Phil Singer's public rationalization of her accepting a $146,666 private jet trip by saying she “complied with all the relevant ethics rules” on accepting private air travel.
The relevant rules are that senators and candidates make reimbursement at a rate equal to that of a first-class ticket. I know first class is pricey, but unless she flew to the moon I can't image that a trip anywhere on earth would cost $146 thousand.
Those who want to see a Democrat as our next president better hope that Barak Obama doesn't have any gold plated skeletons in his closet.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Memo To World: We Are Having A Nervous Breakdown.
It is probably going to get a lot uglier.
Hopefully, we can contain our fomenting madness to our own national boundaries, but we cannot make any gurantees, with the most acute psychotic inmates steering this Ship of Fools... er.... uh.... State.
Seriously, fellow inhabitants of planet Earth. Get ready for a huge implosion.
As Larisa says, the toxic emotions over here are palpable. I've been seeing it and hearing it for nearly two years. People are chronically pissed off. Others are noticeably depressed. Others are scared shitless (not of al Qaeda, but of enemies far closer that the wilds of Pakistan. I have never seen this country like this. No, not even in the 60s.
There may have been more in-your-face protests back then, but there was nowhere near the anger, fear and feelings of helplessness and despair, a dangerous combination of emotional energy that could errupt into who-knows-what, any day, week or month, now.
If I were a gambler, which I am not any more than I have to be to continue to live in this loony bin of a country, I would bet that the meltdown will come sooner than the 2008 election or very soon, thereafter.
I do not believe the center can hold.
Larisa Alexandrovna BIO
Our national nervous breakdown has begun
Posted May 25, 2007 09:59 PM (EST)
Read More: Rosie O'Donnell, Curtis Sliwa, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Dick Cheney
The country is reaching critical mass and even if you were not a witness to Rosie O'Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck's near cat fight on national television, you likely have noticed a palpable national nervous breakdown building all around you. I don't mean the rabid hate and death threats issuing out of the right wing circus and its bigots of patriotism or the pundits of malevolence who get paid to spew forth venom on Fox.
No, sadly that rhetoric is the normal condition of bitter, self-hating, and corrupt mental midgets striving for attention in a world where they can no longer disguise themselves in bed sheets and declare themselves to be the superior race. While O'Donnell and Hasselbeck had a tiff, to be sure, it was Fox guest Curtis Sliwa who actually threatened violence, openly and on national television expressing his wish to take a baseball bat to O'Donnell and beat her like a "human piñata."
Violent Hate
Obviously such misogyny is normal for men of little intellect and commonplace among the Fox propagandists. But it is not what these lunatics say that is at issue; rather, it is how the country reacts or does not react that is of concern.
Historically, the normal reaction of the civilized world towards these ethically vacant kooks has been to cast them to the periphery of society, from which their deranged and violent world view can do little harm.
After all, hate unchecked but so carefully publicized was one of the major contributors to the rise of Nazis. No, the normal reaction of even a mildly ethical society would be to make someone like Sliwa an outcast among decent people, and certainly to keep him at a distance from the female citizenry. One has to wonder if he beats his wife or girlfriend when she gets a bit too mouthy. In our culture, however, with its politics of hate, such rhetoric is treated as normal Worse still; there is no reaction from a society which claims to have "values" and the ear of "God."
Desperation
But our national nightmare and our soon to be national nervous breakdown are far beyond the prevailing normalcy of the culture of hate and the almost open-armed acceptance of it by uber-nationalists and sane people alike. We have entered a whole other stage of panic and fury, one in which our pompous President actually threatens a journalist's children on television in a sort of wink-wink mob-like suggestion that one might find coming out of the mouth of Tony Soprano:
"They are a threat to your children, David,' he said to NBC's David Gregory"
Hysteria
Or take the meltdown by House Republican leader John Boehner over the Iraq appropriations bill that seemed so bizarrely unrelated to the topic at hand:
"I didn't come here to be a Congressman. I came here to do something," Representative John Boehner said. "And I think at the top of our list is providing for the safety and security of the American people. That's at the top of our list. After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them? Ladies and gentlemen, if we don't do it now, if we don't have the courage to defeat the enemy, we will long, long regret it"
Leaving aside the absurdity of this statement in which the war in Iraq is falsely implicated in the attacks of September 11, what prompted a grown man - always tanned and composed - to suddenly cry like a child on the House floor? Surely he knows that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the attack of September 11? Surely he must know that it is, in fact, precisely the war in Iraq that has taken our national focus away from those who have attacked us? And surely he knows that he has managed to omit yet another 3,000+ Americans and over 600,000 Iraqis who have died at the hands of a corrupt and dishonest administration? Yet he cried, shaking to contain himself, and delivered this torrent of nonsense on national television. Why? Is it guilt over the lies coming out of his mouth? Is it panic at the thought that no matter what he does, Dick Cheney will have his war anyway?
From all angles, there is a real and palpable feeling that the nation is in near panic over the corruption and dictatorial flavoring this country is being smothered in. And even the leaders of this corrupt stew are feeling something in the air.
While the President is reigning as the bully-in-chief and in desperation threatening a reporter's children, and Boehner is sobbing while stating lies as a matter of fact, and grown men have resorted to threatening to beat to death a celebrity on national television, even the nation's aristocracy is not immune and is falling apart at the seams.
All Prevailing Fear
From my own direct experience, even the genteel class is splitting at the seams. I recently attended a high school reunion for a school I did not attend (nor could ever afford) as a guest of one of the graduates. The school in question was St. George's and the moneyed Americans present there were a mix of Republicans and Democrats, from varying degrees of wealth, yet all could be easily described as blue-blooded to the bone. Although I attended as the date of one of the privileged, the writer in me could not resist the opportunity to observe the nation's nobility mingling in their element and note their conversations when they believed themselves to be insulated from an outsider such as myself.
Obviously in genteel circles I would be considered nothing short of a bad mannered, eavesdropped, intruder. I do not mean to imply that I was treated rudely, because I was not. Nor do I mean to imply that everyone with whom I spoke was snobbish and bad tempered, because they were not. But the general feeling I had was that this world was not one I could ever understand or socialize in regularly.
More importantly, this coterie of the privileged provided me with an understanding of just how near collapse the national soul is. Because when even that 1% whom the rest of us - mortals - have generally blamed for the nation's ills is as frightened and worried as we are, then something of a critical mass, a ballooning crisis is near.
The people I met at this event were horror stricken by the direction of where this country is heading and mortified by the abuses of power. There was anger and near panic in their voices when our conversations would wander into politics and the war in Iraq or the attacks of September 11. They are as frightened and worried as the rest of us, angry beyond words, and finding themselves embarrassed by the vehemence of their anger.
The Republicans with whom I spoke that evening proudly identified themselves as such, but passionately defended their party from what one of them called the "jackals" who are in the White House and Congress.
Uncertainty
Yes, there is a sense that an all pervasive concoction of violent hate, desperation, fear and massive hysteria is nearly ready to explode across the nation. No one knows what to do or how to respond beyond their most base emotions, and hope seems to be a mirage built on commercials of cotton candy safety provided by Big Brother. People are falling apart, lashing out, and doing it no matter what their level of income or political leaning.
Journalists are outraged too and cannot fathom what more they can report to a seemingly irrelevant Congress and a quietly desperate nation.
The nation is tumbling toward pandemonium with each scandal and each lack of response from the other branches of government. With each outrage and abuse of power, more and more quiet disillusionment is turning into chaotic emoting.
Do you feel this as acutely as I do? Perhaps not, but I have the benefit of my own experience, living in a country of jackals who found themselves amidst a seething nation far too long abused, frightened, and angry. When the Soviet Union finally fell, it did not fall peacefully; and worse, it fell into chaos and into the hands of criminals. But it was still the oppressive regime that fell and the good guys - that is, us - who won the Cold War. What happens when the good guys fall, imploding under the weight of mass corruption and a populace teetering near deranged anger?
Does it matter that Rosie and Elizabeth had a spat, when the rest of the nation is barely keeping a grip on its sanity, trying to cope in a fabricated reality in which 2 + 2 = whatever we are told?
What is next, then, in this land of mass media produced fuel for a fire that is already raging strongly in our national conscience? I am unsettled and fretting, because I have been here before and the smell of it frightens me... the smell of the desperations of those in power and the smell of "enough" from the powerless.
Comments Page 1 of 2 > »
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Right-wingers Don't Trust Bush, Either.
Der Murder Monkey has gone too far for even the far flung reaches of Wingnuttia.
Let's hope so.
Any true, blue Libertarian has got to be wigging out!
Bush's power grab
Right-wingers don't trust the bastard, either
worldnetdaily.com
Excerpt: President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president. Directive NSPD-51 and HSPD-20 establishes under a new National Continuity Coordinator.
Under this directive, if Bush determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, he can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."
In layman's terms, if Bush determines a national emergency has occurred, he becomes our dictator so he can direct any and all government and business activities until he declares the emergency is over.
NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 makes no reference whatsoever to Congress, suggesting that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.
So, a few days before the '08 election, if a bomb goes off, say, in New York, Bush will legally become Dictator Bush until he decides he no longer wants to be Dictator Bush, which would be never. It's a damn dangerous possibility.
Shit, like this just fuels those 9-11 rumors.
Bush would have to obey the law - if not for 9-11.
Bush would have to obey the Constitution - if not for 9-11. Bush would have to enforce the Bill of Rights - if not for 9-11. Bush couldn't steal $200M a day in Iraq - if not for 9-11 9-11 was the greatest day of Bush's life.
Bush wants absolute power for life - that's why he's not worried about his 28% approval.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free.
Let's hope so.
Any true, blue Libertarian has got to be wigging out!
Bush's power grab
Right-wingers don't trust the bastard, either
worldnetdaily.com
Excerpt: President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president. Directive NSPD-51 and HSPD-20 establishes under a new National Continuity Coordinator.
Under this directive, if Bush determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, he can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."
In layman's terms, if Bush determines a national emergency has occurred, he becomes our dictator so he can direct any and all government and business activities until he declares the emergency is over.
NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 makes no reference whatsoever to Congress, suggesting that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.
So, a few days before the '08 election, if a bomb goes off, say, in New York, Bush will legally become Dictator Bush until he decides he no longer wants to be Dictator Bush, which would be never. It's a damn dangerous possibility.
Shit, like this just fuels those 9-11 rumors.
Bush would have to obey the law - if not for 9-11.
Bush would have to obey the Constitution - if not for 9-11. Bush would have to enforce the Bill of Rights - if not for 9-11. Bush couldn't steal $200M a day in Iraq - if not for 9-11 9-11 was the greatest day of Bush's life.
Bush wants absolute power for life - that's why he's not worried about his 28% approval.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free.
Wire Those Liars Up!
Somebody is lying to Congress. Gonzo, Goodling, McNulty.... somebody is lying. (probably all of them). They are lying about criminal issues.
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
I have come to the conclusion that whenever there is totally contradictory testimony before a congressional committee, the testifiers should be brought back before the cameras and wired. That's right, hooked up to a lie detector.
If people in our government are going to act like thugs and criminals, they should be treated as such.
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Lest We Forget.......Ms. Goodling
Officials Describe Interference by Former Gonzales Aide
By Dan Eggen and Carol D. Leonnig
The Washington Post
Wednesday 23 May 2007
When Jeffrey A. Taylor, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, wanted to hire a new career prosecutor last fall, he had to run the idea past Monica M. Goodling, then a 33-year-old aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
The candidate was Seth Adam Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency and had served as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office.
Goodling stalled the hiring, saying that Meinero was too "liberal" for the nonpolitical position, according to two sources familiar with the dispute.
The tussle over Meinero, who was eventually hired at Taylor's insistence, led to a Justice Department investigation of whether Goodling improperly weighed political affiliation when reviewing applicants for rank-and-file prosecutor jobs, the sources said.
A 1999 graduate of Regent University law school in Virginia Beach with six months of prosecutorial experience, Goodling was among a small coterie of young aides to Gonzales who were remarkable for their inexperience and autonomy in deciding the fates of seasoned Justice Department lawyers, according to current and former officials who worked with the group.
She worked closely last year with D. Kyle Sampson, then the attorney general's chief of staff, sifting through lists of U.S. attorneys considered for removal, according to congressional interviews and Justice Department documents released to the public. Goodling also was central to the department's stumbling efforts to defend its handling of the firings of nine prosecutors, at times by attacking their reputations. She resigned in April.
Goodling is scheduled to testify today before the House Judiciary Committee about the firings, under an offer of immunity.
"All I ever wanted to do was serve this president, this administration, this department," Goodling tearfully told a senior Justice official shortly before she quit, according to a transcript of his interview released by the House committee last night.
Goodling's attorney, who has accused Democratic lawmakers of having already made up their minds about his client's role, did not return e-mail and telephone messages left at his office yesterday.
Goodling had been a divisive figure at the Justice Department since she arrived in early 2002, gaining a reputation for having a mercurial temperament and being prickly toward career employees, said numerous current and former officials who worked with her.
Goodling and Sampson "knew politics, not law," said Bruce Fein, a senior Justice official during the Reagan administration. "This extent [of] neophytes running the department is highly irregular."
Goodling started at Justice in a newly created position as senior counsel to the head of the public affairs office.
Nearly everyone who worked with her agreed that she was a tireless employee who often worked late into the night, and said she had deep loyalty to President Bush and his administration.
"She was very hardworking, she was dedicated, she was professional," said one former Justice official who worked closely with Goodling. "She is the type of person who is good at carrying out tasks. She was dependable."
In 2004, Goodling spent six months in the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia, in a special program designed to give Justice employees and other government lawyers a chance to gain courtroom experience.
Reviews of her tenure there are mixed. Three current or former Justice officials said she quickly developed a reputation for having an antagonistic and sharply ideological style. Others said she carried out her responsibilities professionally.
Goodling's next stop was as deputy director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, which oversees the department's 93 chief prosecutors. In April 2006, she began working for Gonzales, who granted her and Sampson broad powers to make personnel choices and other major decisions, according to officials and documents.
E-mails and other documents show that Goodling, who was also Justice's liaison to the White House, played a central role in arranging for the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Republican National Committee official and aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove, as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.
Goodling also met last summer with two New Mexico Republicans who complained about then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias, who was later fired. In another case, she single-handedly blocked the dismissal of a North Carolina prosecutor who for more than a year had been on the list of candidates to be fired.
The dispute with Taylor came last fall, when Taylor heard that Goodling was thwarting his effort to hire Meinero, sources said.
Taylor complained to Goodling directly, according to two sources who were told about the conversation, saying that a U.S. attorney's office hires all kinds of people. Taylor also complained to Sampson, who was a friend and eventually gave Taylor the authority to bypass Goodling.
Taylor mentioned the experience to U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg of Alexandria, the sources said. After Rosenberg became Gonzales's temporary chief of staff following Sampson's resignation, he asked the department's inspector general to look into Taylor's allegations, they added.
Before she and Sampson resigned, Goodling wrote a series of memos summing up the longtime U.S. attorneys she helped to fire. She said that Iglesias was "in over his head," that Carol C. Lam of San Diego showed "a failure to perform" and that Arizona's Paul K. Charlton was guilty of "repeated instances of insubordination."
Yet Goodling's final list, assembled as "talking points" for Congress and the media, also noted that nearly every fired prosecutor had received stellar reviews from Justice Department evaluators.
Goodling's public troubles began in mid-March, when Sampson disclosed to Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and others that the plan to fire the U.S. attorneys had begun more than two years earlier in the White House, contrary to what McNulty and another official had testified to Congress.
He and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella were livid, believing that Goodling and Sampson had misled them during preparations for the testimony, according to new transcripts released yesterday by the House Judiciary Committee.
"They were dead to him," Justice official David Margolis said, referring to Moschella. "They had burned their bridges with him."
Margolis said that Goodling was "shaken to her core" by the controversy and that she sobbed for "30 to 45 minutes" during a meeting in his office shortly before she resigned.
"I knew she must think that everything was unraveling," he said. "And, you know, she was right about that."
Staff writers Amy Goldstein and Jerry Markon contributed to this report.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
By Dan Eggen and Carol D. Leonnig
The Washington Post
Wednesday 23 May 2007
When Jeffrey A. Taylor, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, wanted to hire a new career prosecutor last fall, he had to run the idea past Monica M. Goodling, then a 33-year-old aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
The candidate was Seth Adam Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency and had served as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office.
Goodling stalled the hiring, saying that Meinero was too "liberal" for the nonpolitical position, according to two sources familiar with the dispute.
The tussle over Meinero, who was eventually hired at Taylor's insistence, led to a Justice Department investigation of whether Goodling improperly weighed political affiliation when reviewing applicants for rank-and-file prosecutor jobs, the sources said.
A 1999 graduate of Regent University law school in Virginia Beach with six months of prosecutorial experience, Goodling was among a small coterie of young aides to Gonzales who were remarkable for their inexperience and autonomy in deciding the fates of seasoned Justice Department lawyers, according to current and former officials who worked with the group.
She worked closely last year with D. Kyle Sampson, then the attorney general's chief of staff, sifting through lists of U.S. attorneys considered for removal, according to congressional interviews and Justice Department documents released to the public. Goodling also was central to the department's stumbling efforts to defend its handling of the firings of nine prosecutors, at times by attacking their reputations. She resigned in April.
Goodling is scheduled to testify today before the House Judiciary Committee about the firings, under an offer of immunity.
"All I ever wanted to do was serve this president, this administration, this department," Goodling tearfully told a senior Justice official shortly before she quit, according to a transcript of his interview released by the House committee last night.
Goodling's attorney, who has accused Democratic lawmakers of having already made up their minds about his client's role, did not return e-mail and telephone messages left at his office yesterday.
Goodling had been a divisive figure at the Justice Department since she arrived in early 2002, gaining a reputation for having a mercurial temperament and being prickly toward career employees, said numerous current and former officials who worked with her.
Goodling and Sampson "knew politics, not law," said Bruce Fein, a senior Justice official during the Reagan administration. "This extent [of] neophytes running the department is highly irregular."
Goodling started at Justice in a newly created position as senior counsel to the head of the public affairs office.
Nearly everyone who worked with her agreed that she was a tireless employee who often worked late into the night, and said she had deep loyalty to President Bush and his administration.
"She was very hardworking, she was dedicated, she was professional," said one former Justice official who worked closely with Goodling. "She is the type of person who is good at carrying out tasks. She was dependable."
In 2004, Goodling spent six months in the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia, in a special program designed to give Justice employees and other government lawyers a chance to gain courtroom experience.
Reviews of her tenure there are mixed. Three current or former Justice officials said she quickly developed a reputation for having an antagonistic and sharply ideological style. Others said she carried out her responsibilities professionally.
Goodling's next stop was as deputy director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, which oversees the department's 93 chief prosecutors. In April 2006, she began working for Gonzales, who granted her and Sampson broad powers to make personnel choices and other major decisions, according to officials and documents.
E-mails and other documents show that Goodling, who was also Justice's liaison to the White House, played a central role in arranging for the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Republican National Committee official and aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove, as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.
Goodling also met last summer with two New Mexico Republicans who complained about then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias, who was later fired. In another case, she single-handedly blocked the dismissal of a North Carolina prosecutor who for more than a year had been on the list of candidates to be fired.
The dispute with Taylor came last fall, when Taylor heard that Goodling was thwarting his effort to hire Meinero, sources said.
Taylor complained to Goodling directly, according to two sources who were told about the conversation, saying that a U.S. attorney's office hires all kinds of people. Taylor also complained to Sampson, who was a friend and eventually gave Taylor the authority to bypass Goodling.
Taylor mentioned the experience to U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg of Alexandria, the sources said. After Rosenberg became Gonzales's temporary chief of staff following Sampson's resignation, he asked the department's inspector general to look into Taylor's allegations, they added.
Before she and Sampson resigned, Goodling wrote a series of memos summing up the longtime U.S. attorneys she helped to fire. She said that Iglesias was "in over his head," that Carol C. Lam of San Diego showed "a failure to perform" and that Arizona's Paul K. Charlton was guilty of "repeated instances of insubordination."
Yet Goodling's final list, assembled as "talking points" for Congress and the media, also noted that nearly every fired prosecutor had received stellar reviews from Justice Department evaluators.
Goodling's public troubles began in mid-March, when Sampson disclosed to Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and others that the plan to fire the U.S. attorneys had begun more than two years earlier in the White House, contrary to what McNulty and another official had testified to Congress.
He and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella were livid, believing that Goodling and Sampson had misled them during preparations for the testimony, according to new transcripts released yesterday by the House Judiciary Committee.
"They were dead to him," Justice official David Margolis said, referring to Moschella. "They had burned their bridges with him."
Margolis said that Goodling was "shaken to her core" by the controversy and that she sobbed for "30 to 45 minutes" during a meeting in his office shortly before she resigned.
"I knew she must think that everything was unraveling," he said. "And, you know, she was right about that."
Staff writers Amy Goldstein and Jerry Markon contributed to this report.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Does House Judiciary Have A Freakin' Clue?
When asked what caging is, Goodling said that it is a Direct Marketing technique. It may be.
But that wasn't what the RNC was using it for. The RNC was using it to disenfranchize minority voters, many of them who were soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Is the House Judiciary Committee really as ignorant as they seem? They should have been on this like a Hen on a June-bug.
Are we going to have to go to D.C. and enlighten these people as to what's really happening in this country?
Put Rove and Griffin in Jail!
The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom
By Greg Palast
BradBlog.com
Thursday 24 May 2007
And the no longer "missing" Rove emails revealing the cagey scheme to steal 2008...
This Monica revealed something hotter - much hotter - than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One.... And the Committee members didn't even know it.
Goodling testified that Gonzales' Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin's "involvement in 'caging' voters" in 2004.
Huh?? Tim Griffin? "Caging"???
The perplexed committee members hadn't a clue - and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found "the keys to the kingdom," they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.
The keys: the missing emails - and missing link - that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.
Kingdom enough for ya?
But what's 'caging' and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin's involvement in it? Because it's a felony. And a big one.
Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.
Here's how caging worked, and along with Griffin's thoughtful emails themselves you'll understand it all in no time.
The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and - you got to love this - American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.
Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation - and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.
How do I know? I have the caging lists...
I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can't be found. I have the emails. 500 of them - sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.
Here's what you need to know - and the Committee would have discovered, if only they'd asked:
1. 'Caging' voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.
2. Griffin wasn't "involved" in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove's right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It's in the email I got. Thanks. And it's posted above.
3. On December 7, 2006, the ragin', cagin' Griffin was named, on Rove's personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.
The committee was perplexed about Monica's panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That's because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and posted here), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that "British reporter," Greg Palast.
There's no pride in this. Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.
And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling's confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It's not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it's about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008.
Now that they have the keys, let's see if they can put them in the right door. The clock is ticking ladies and gents...
-------
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
But that wasn't what the RNC was using it for. The RNC was using it to disenfranchize minority voters, many of them who were soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Is the House Judiciary Committee really as ignorant as they seem? They should have been on this like a Hen on a June-bug.
Are we going to have to go to D.C. and enlighten these people as to what's really happening in this country?
Put Rove and Griffin in Jail!
The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom
By Greg Palast
BradBlog.com
Thursday 24 May 2007
And the no longer "missing" Rove emails revealing the cagey scheme to steal 2008...
This Monica revealed something hotter - much hotter - than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One.... And the Committee members didn't even know it.
Goodling testified that Gonzales' Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin's "involvement in 'caging' voters" in 2004.
Huh?? Tim Griffin? "Caging"???
The perplexed committee members hadn't a clue - and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found "the keys to the kingdom," they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.
The keys: the missing emails - and missing link - that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.
Kingdom enough for ya?
But what's 'caging' and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin's involvement in it? Because it's a felony. And a big one.
Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.
Here's how caging worked, and along with Griffin's thoughtful emails themselves you'll understand it all in no time.
The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and - you got to love this - American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.
Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation - and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.
How do I know? I have the caging lists...
I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can't be found. I have the emails. 500 of them - sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.
Here's what you need to know - and the Committee would have discovered, if only they'd asked:
1. 'Caging' voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.
2. Griffin wasn't "involved" in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove's right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It's in the email I got. Thanks. And it's posted above.
3. On December 7, 2006, the ragin', cagin' Griffin was named, on Rove's personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.
The committee was perplexed about Monica's panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That's because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and posted here), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that "British reporter," Greg Palast.
There's no pride in this. Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.
And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling's confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It's not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it's about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008.
Now that they have the keys, let's see if they can put them in the right door. The clock is ticking ladies and gents...
-------
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Is Bush Leading Us To Nuclear War?
By William D. Hartung and Frida Berrigan
In These Times
Wednesday 23 May 2007
Only days before the fifth anniversary of September 11, President George W. Bush addressed military officers in Washington to warn that nuclear-armed terrorists could "blackmail the free world and spread their ideologies of hate and raise a moral threat to America."
This alarmist vision was accompanied by the White House's release of "A National Strategy for Combating Terrorism," which painted a picture of a "troubling potential WMD terrorism nexus emanating from Tehran." The administration is building the case for war against Iran - a job made easier by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent announcement that Iran can now enrich uranium on an industrial scale - despite the fact that many Iran-watchers and nuclear experts consider their claims of enrichment capacity to be an overblown boast.
This is not the first time the "no-nuclear-weapons-for-you" ploy has been used to lay the groundwork for a war. On Oct. 7, 2002, while making the case for regime change in Iraq, President Bush said: "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Yellow cake, aluminum tubes and histrionics about Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities followed ... all of which were challenged at the time, and have turned out to be completely fabricated. And, when not grinding the axe of pre-emptive war as counter-proliferation strategy, the administration periodically raises the specter of nuclear terrorism, in the form of dirty bombs and suitcase-sized warheads.
But while the United States demands that other countries end their nuclear programs, the Bush administration is busy planning a new generation of nuclear weapons. Nearly 20 years after the Berlin Wall crumbled, the United States is allocating more funding, on average, to nuclear weapons than during the Cold War.
The Bush administration is pumping this money -- more than $6 billion this year - into renovating the nuclear weapons complex and designing new nuclear weapons. Such hypocrisy is one of the main obstacles to nuclear arms reductions because it runs the risk of shattering the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in which the nuclear-armed states pledged to begin the process of disarmament if the non-nuclear states opted not to pursue the deadly technology.
The centerpiece of the administration's move toward developing a new generation of nuclear weapons is "Complex 2030," a multiyear plan introduced last April by the National Nuclear Security Administration (the semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that oversees the nuclear weapons program).
Complex 2030 calls for the construction of new or upgraded facilities at each of the National Nuclear Security Administration's eight nuclear weapons-related sites throughout the country. The plan also calls for building a new nuclear weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), inside the old warheads. The program was conceived in response to concerns that the cores of existing nuclear weapons could be wearing out and need to be replaced. But RRW development has gone much further than that.
The Department of Energy (DOE) notes in its summary of Complex 2030 that one of the major goals of the program is to "improve the capability to design, develop, certify and complete production of new or adapted warheads in the event of new military requirements." In short, while the Bush administration has publicly stressed reductions in nuclear weapons, it is working to produce new, more usable nuclear weapons.
Three Small Steps Forward
As a candidate for president in 2000, and during his first months in office, Bush suggested that the United States should significantly cut its nuclear arsenal. In his first address before a joint session of Congress, the new president went so far as to pledge: "We can discard Cold War relics and reduce our own nuclear forces to reflect today's needs." He followed through on this promise with the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which calls for reducing the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals from 6,000 each - the limit established under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads each over a 10-year period.
Presidents Bush and Putin signed the treaty at Konstantin Palace in St. Petersburg right after the city celebrated its 300th birthday in June 2003. Also known as the Treaty of Moscow, SORT has serious flaws. It has no method for verifying that each side is meeting its commitments; the cuts are not permanent - neither side is obligated to destroy or dismantle the warheads, only to take them "off-line;" and both sides would have to agree to extend the treaty if they have not met their obligations by the time the treaty expires in 2012. After the Senate unanimously voted to ratify the treaty, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called it "as flimsy a treaty as the Senate has ever considered." Yet even with these flaws, SORT establishes important benchmarks and offers the potential of trust-building between the former superpower rivals.
Another positive development occurred in mid-February, when the Bush administration, after years of work through the "six party talks," announced a deal with North Korea. The hermit nation agreed to take the first steps toward dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for large supplies of fuel oil and eventual political recognition. The first phase of the agreement calls for North Korea to take concrete steps within 60 days, including closing down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, getting inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground, and beginning to reveal the locations of its other nuclear facilities. In exchange, it will receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil at the end of the 60-day period. The agreement demonstrates that the Bush administration is slowly learning the nuances of diplomacy - you have to give to get.
More good news surrounds the recent fate of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). One of the most controversial new weapon designs proposed by the nuclear weapons complex, the RNEP promised to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets, such as underground bunkers containing chemical and biological weapons and military command centers. Such a difficult challenge would necessitate decades of steady and climbing investment, making it the kind of techno-fantasy that the nuclear weapons complex of the future would love to tackle.
In 2003, Congress allocated $15 million to study the RNEP. But in 2004 and 2005, Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio), then chair of the Water and Energy Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, led successful fights to defund the RNEP. Later, he boasted: "It's dead, forget about it! Go conventional. If I have to kick it three or four times, I'm going to keep kicking at it until we think we've totally gotten it out of the way."
Giant Leaps Backward
The Bush administration has aggressively counteracted these small positive developments with a succession of negative and destabilizing actions and statements - the most significant of which is the assertion that nuclear weapons are a central component of U.S. military and political strategy.
This stunner was concealed within the administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a Pentagon report that relies on input from the Joint Chiefs and the armed services to define the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security. The final classified report concluded that nuclear weapons "play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends."
Submitted to Congress in January 2002, the NPR was not made public until portions were leaked to the press two months later. It states, "The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will ... be able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground testing if required."
The NPR introduces the concept of a "new Triad," composed of nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, defensive systems, and "responsive infrastructure" for maintaining and/or producing nuclear weapons as requested. The report also emphasizes the development of creative new nuclear weapons - like low-yield or surgical warheads that are able to "reduce collateral damage," and nuclear bombs with "earth penetrating" capabilities.
The NPR concluded that nuclear weapons "provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force." The Bush NPR explicitly named potential targets - Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Russia. The review explained that the United States might use nuclear weapons to retaliate for the use of chemical or biological weapons against U.S. targets, as the ultimate tool in a military conflict over Taiwan, or, disturbingly, as a response to undefined "surprising developments." Proliferation trumps prevention
During the Cold War, spending on nuclear weapons averaged $4.2 billion a year. When the Cold War ended, DOE officials and members of Congress imagined the conversion of the nuclear weapons complex. But innovative proposals for civilian or green technology labs never got off the ground, and the nuclear labs successfully lobbied Congress for a new infusion of weapons money. By the end of President Clinton's tenure, nuclear weapons activities within the DOE's annual budget had jumped to $5.2 billion -- more than the Cold War average, but less than what the new Bush administration would say it needed.
Since then, spending on nuclear weapons has increased by almost 14 percent to a 2007 total of $6.4 billion (after adjustment for inflation), but it is not enough to satisfy a nuclear-obsessed administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), formed in 2000 to manage the nation's nuclear weapons complex within the DOE, has a five-year "National Security Plan" that calls for annual increases that will push the nuclear weapons budget to $7.4 billion by 2012.
Compare these significant increases in nuclear spending to what the DOE is allocating for non-proliferation and prevention of nuclear conflict. The NNSA spends more than nine times more on "Atomic Energy Defense Activities" - a category that includes nuclear weapons, naval nuclear reactors and environmental cleanup at military nuclear facilities - than it does on nuclear arms reductions and non-proliferation.
In addition, spending on nuclear weapons research, development and maintenance in the DOE budget far outpaces the funding devoted to the development of alternative energy sources, a critical need in the age of global warming and dwindling oil supplies. The DOE's proposed budget for "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" - which includes non-nuclear, non-fossil fuel forms of energy - is $1.2 billion for FY 2008, one-thirteenth of expenditures on "Atomic Energy Defense Activities."
Upgrading Nuclear Capabilities
Under Complex 2030, the NNSA is taking steps to boost the U.S. ability to test and produce new warheads, and to consolidate production of uranium, plutonium and non-nuclear components within nuclear weapons.
The central component of Complex 2030 is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. The official rationale for the RRW program is to produce weapons that are safer and more durable than the warheads in the current stockpile. Supporters of RRW fear that the components of nuclear weapons could wear out and that the only way to know if the warheads are viable is to replace their inner workings. And - the line of thinking continues - as long as scientists are replacing the plutonium or uranium cores, they might as well "tweak" the weapon's design.
But the assertion that the old nuclear weapons need to be replaced by reliable new warheads is undermined by a recent NNSA study that indicates that the existing plutonium triggers, or "pits," may be viable for another 90 to 100 years. The report, issued in November and reviewed by an independent panel of scientists and academics, indicates the need for considerable skepticism of the Complex 2030 claims.
In addition, the RRW program will establish the infrastructure needed for future development of new warheads with new capabilities. A key element of this upgraded and consolidated nuclear infrastructure is a new facility to produce "pits," the plutonium triggers that set off the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. The DOE has proposed constructing a Modern Pit Facility, but Congress has deemed the $2 to $4 billion price tag too steep, and has rejected funding proposals for two years running.
As an alternative, the department is pushing the idea of a Consolidated Plutonium Center (CPC) that would bring all of the plutonium-related activities together at one site. The new facility would be a sort of "modern pit facility-plus," capable each year of producing 125 plutonium pits to trigger nuclear weapons, and at the same time develop new military applications for plutonium.
This more expansive concept is likely to cost more than the facility alone, but NNSA has yet to provide a cost estimate to Congress. A small down payment for the CPC - $24.9 million - is proposed in the FY 2008 budget; budget projections for continuing work on the CPC total $282 million through 2012.
Under Complex 2030, the new CPC will be one of a series "transformed" and "consolidated" nuclear sites. Currently, there are eight facilities - Los Alamos National Laboratory (N.M.), Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Calif.) and Sandia National Laboratories (N.M.), the Nevada Test Site (R&D activities, including sub-critical experiments), the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant in Tennessee (uranium and other components), the Pantex Plant in Texas (warhead assembly, disassembly, disposal), the Kansas City Plant (non-nuclear components), and the Savannah River Site (tritium extraction and handling) in Georgia.
While Complex 2030 would mandate that some of the sites have a smaller "footprint" (less floor space), it would also require the investment of tens of billions of dollars for new or upgraded factories, including two new factories - a Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF) and a Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) - at the Y-12 site; a new Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory to "support plutonium operations"; a new factory for the production of non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons at the current site of the Kansas City plant; and significant upgrades at the Pantex warhead assembly/disassembly facility. The spending on the CPC is only a small portion of the as yet unknown costs of the Complex 2030 initiative. Broken pledges, skeptical Congress
All of this raises concerns for Robert Civiak. A program examiner for Department of Energy national security programs in 1988 and 1989, Civiak now does research for Tri-Valley Cares, a group that advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons. He calls the Reliable Replacement Warhead a "multibillion dollar effort to redesign and replace every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal." Jay Coghlan, executive director at Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, agrees, calling RRW a "nukes forever program, and a Trojan horse for future new designs."
NNSA's planning documents call for the production of the first RRW by 2012, and according to analysis by James Sterngold in the San Francisco Chronicle, the work is already beginning. He writes, "Lab officials said researchers not only have produced extensive designs ... but they have already conducted non-nuclear tests of the critical detonation devices and other components. They have begun to plan in detail how the weapons would be manufactured."
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), the new chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, has criticized the RRW project for its "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" approach. "There appears to have been little thought given to the question of why the United States needs to build new nuclear warheads at this time," he says. "My preference is that the DOE would have spent their resources reconfiguring the old Cold War complex and dismantling obsolete warheads." He has not ruled out slowing or eliminating the RRW if the administration is unable to present a strategy "that defines the future mission, the emerging threats and the specific U.S. nuclear stockpile necessary to achieve strategic goals."
The 110th Congress and Beyond
In an August 2005 speech to a symposium on post-cold war nuclear strategy, Rep. Hobson described the administration's call for research on new bombs and the Nuclear Earth Penetrator as "very provocative and overly aggressive policies that undermine our moral authority to argue that other nations should forgo nuclear weapons."
Hobson's concerns are shared by a number of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Lynne Woolsey (D-Calif.), all of whom joined him in successfully leading an effort to defund the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Skepticism about the need for massive investment in nuclear weapons at a time of huge war bills and growing deficits, a growing sophistication about nuclear issues, and a Democratic majority means that for the first time in years the nuclear weapons complex is feeling the heat.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) represents the state that houses the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which recently won the Reliable Replacement Warhead competition. In a press release issued after the decision, she said, "While I appreciate the fact that Lawrence Livermore was selected, this in no way answers my questions about the Reliable Replacement Warhead program" - a program that she remains "100 percent opposed to."
Despite support from the White House, the DOE, key contractors, and a number of powerful members of Congress such as Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) - all of whom have nuclear weapons facilities in their states or districts - the Complex 2030 plan to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure may be scaled back or rejected by congressional opponents, who will receive backing from arms control and environmental organizations.
But it will take more than cutting a million here or a billion there, more than gunning against a specific corner of the Complex 2030 plan, more than defunding the most aggressive or alarming aspects of the nuclear weapons complex, to deal with nuclear weapons in the 21st century. Members of Congress are going to need to challenge the bedrock of administration foreign policy - that nuclear weapons should occupy center stage as a guarantor of U.S. security.
But they will not do that without being pushed - and pushed hard - by civil society. The urgency of the task creates opportunities for a big tent of strange bedfellows to work together: Weary cold warriors like George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, who in January co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons"; well-established Washington organizations like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Arms Control Association; disarmament activists like Helen Caldicott and the Abolition 2000 network; and members of the international community from the United Nations on down are all saying the same thing: The United States cannot insist that other nations disarm or opt not to pursue nuclear technology, while aggressively ramping up U.S. nuclear capabilities. This hypocrisy cannot stand.
Global security through nuclear disarmament or a world awash in nuclear weapons. The choice is obvious. And it is ours to make.
-------
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
In These Times
Wednesday 23 May 2007
Only days before the fifth anniversary of September 11, President George W. Bush addressed military officers in Washington to warn that nuclear-armed terrorists could "blackmail the free world and spread their ideologies of hate and raise a moral threat to America."
This alarmist vision was accompanied by the White House's release of "A National Strategy for Combating Terrorism," which painted a picture of a "troubling potential WMD terrorism nexus emanating from Tehran." The administration is building the case for war against Iran - a job made easier by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent announcement that Iran can now enrich uranium on an industrial scale - despite the fact that many Iran-watchers and nuclear experts consider their claims of enrichment capacity to be an overblown boast.
This is not the first time the "no-nuclear-weapons-for-you" ploy has been used to lay the groundwork for a war. On Oct. 7, 2002, while making the case for regime change in Iraq, President Bush said: "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Yellow cake, aluminum tubes and histrionics about Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities followed ... all of which were challenged at the time, and have turned out to be completely fabricated. And, when not grinding the axe of pre-emptive war as counter-proliferation strategy, the administration periodically raises the specter of nuclear terrorism, in the form of dirty bombs and suitcase-sized warheads.
But while the United States demands that other countries end their nuclear programs, the Bush administration is busy planning a new generation of nuclear weapons. Nearly 20 years after the Berlin Wall crumbled, the United States is allocating more funding, on average, to nuclear weapons than during the Cold War.
The Bush administration is pumping this money -- more than $6 billion this year - into renovating the nuclear weapons complex and designing new nuclear weapons. Such hypocrisy is one of the main obstacles to nuclear arms reductions because it runs the risk of shattering the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in which the nuclear-armed states pledged to begin the process of disarmament if the non-nuclear states opted not to pursue the deadly technology.
The centerpiece of the administration's move toward developing a new generation of nuclear weapons is "Complex 2030," a multiyear plan introduced last April by the National Nuclear Security Administration (the semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that oversees the nuclear weapons program).
Complex 2030 calls for the construction of new or upgraded facilities at each of the National Nuclear Security Administration's eight nuclear weapons-related sites throughout the country. The plan also calls for building a new nuclear weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), inside the old warheads. The program was conceived in response to concerns that the cores of existing nuclear weapons could be wearing out and need to be replaced. But RRW development has gone much further than that.
The Department of Energy (DOE) notes in its summary of Complex 2030 that one of the major goals of the program is to "improve the capability to design, develop, certify and complete production of new or adapted warheads in the event of new military requirements." In short, while the Bush administration has publicly stressed reductions in nuclear weapons, it is working to produce new, more usable nuclear weapons.
Three Small Steps Forward
As a candidate for president in 2000, and during his first months in office, Bush suggested that the United States should significantly cut its nuclear arsenal. In his first address before a joint session of Congress, the new president went so far as to pledge: "We can discard Cold War relics and reduce our own nuclear forces to reflect today's needs." He followed through on this promise with the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which calls for reducing the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals from 6,000 each - the limit established under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads each over a 10-year period.
Presidents Bush and Putin signed the treaty at Konstantin Palace in St. Petersburg right after the city celebrated its 300th birthday in June 2003. Also known as the Treaty of Moscow, SORT has serious flaws. It has no method for verifying that each side is meeting its commitments; the cuts are not permanent - neither side is obligated to destroy or dismantle the warheads, only to take them "off-line;" and both sides would have to agree to extend the treaty if they have not met their obligations by the time the treaty expires in 2012. After the Senate unanimously voted to ratify the treaty, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called it "as flimsy a treaty as the Senate has ever considered." Yet even with these flaws, SORT establishes important benchmarks and offers the potential of trust-building between the former superpower rivals.
Another positive development occurred in mid-February, when the Bush administration, after years of work through the "six party talks," announced a deal with North Korea. The hermit nation agreed to take the first steps toward dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for large supplies of fuel oil and eventual political recognition. The first phase of the agreement calls for North Korea to take concrete steps within 60 days, including closing down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, getting inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground, and beginning to reveal the locations of its other nuclear facilities. In exchange, it will receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil at the end of the 60-day period. The agreement demonstrates that the Bush administration is slowly learning the nuances of diplomacy - you have to give to get.
More good news surrounds the recent fate of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). One of the most controversial new weapon designs proposed by the nuclear weapons complex, the RNEP promised to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets, such as underground bunkers containing chemical and biological weapons and military command centers. Such a difficult challenge would necessitate decades of steady and climbing investment, making it the kind of techno-fantasy that the nuclear weapons complex of the future would love to tackle.
In 2003, Congress allocated $15 million to study the RNEP. But in 2004 and 2005, Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio), then chair of the Water and Energy Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, led successful fights to defund the RNEP. Later, he boasted: "It's dead, forget about it! Go conventional. If I have to kick it three or four times, I'm going to keep kicking at it until we think we've totally gotten it out of the way."
Giant Leaps Backward
The Bush administration has aggressively counteracted these small positive developments with a succession of negative and destabilizing actions and statements - the most significant of which is the assertion that nuclear weapons are a central component of U.S. military and political strategy.
This stunner was concealed within the administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a Pentagon report that relies on input from the Joint Chiefs and the armed services to define the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security. The final classified report concluded that nuclear weapons "play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends."
Submitted to Congress in January 2002, the NPR was not made public until portions were leaked to the press two months later. It states, "The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will ... be able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground testing if required."
The NPR introduces the concept of a "new Triad," composed of nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, defensive systems, and "responsive infrastructure" for maintaining and/or producing nuclear weapons as requested. The report also emphasizes the development of creative new nuclear weapons - like low-yield or surgical warheads that are able to "reduce collateral damage," and nuclear bombs with "earth penetrating" capabilities.
The NPR concluded that nuclear weapons "provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force." The Bush NPR explicitly named potential targets - Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Russia. The review explained that the United States might use nuclear weapons to retaliate for the use of chemical or biological weapons against U.S. targets, as the ultimate tool in a military conflict over Taiwan, or, disturbingly, as a response to undefined "surprising developments." Proliferation trumps prevention
During the Cold War, spending on nuclear weapons averaged $4.2 billion a year. When the Cold War ended, DOE officials and members of Congress imagined the conversion of the nuclear weapons complex. But innovative proposals for civilian or green technology labs never got off the ground, and the nuclear labs successfully lobbied Congress for a new infusion of weapons money. By the end of President Clinton's tenure, nuclear weapons activities within the DOE's annual budget had jumped to $5.2 billion -- more than the Cold War average, but less than what the new Bush administration would say it needed.
Since then, spending on nuclear weapons has increased by almost 14 percent to a 2007 total of $6.4 billion (after adjustment for inflation), but it is not enough to satisfy a nuclear-obsessed administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), formed in 2000 to manage the nation's nuclear weapons complex within the DOE, has a five-year "National Security Plan" that calls for annual increases that will push the nuclear weapons budget to $7.4 billion by 2012.
Compare these significant increases in nuclear spending to what the DOE is allocating for non-proliferation and prevention of nuclear conflict. The NNSA spends more than nine times more on "Atomic Energy Defense Activities" - a category that includes nuclear weapons, naval nuclear reactors and environmental cleanup at military nuclear facilities - than it does on nuclear arms reductions and non-proliferation.
In addition, spending on nuclear weapons research, development and maintenance in the DOE budget far outpaces the funding devoted to the development of alternative energy sources, a critical need in the age of global warming and dwindling oil supplies. The DOE's proposed budget for "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" - which includes non-nuclear, non-fossil fuel forms of energy - is $1.2 billion for FY 2008, one-thirteenth of expenditures on "Atomic Energy Defense Activities."
Upgrading Nuclear Capabilities
Under Complex 2030, the NNSA is taking steps to boost the U.S. ability to test and produce new warheads, and to consolidate production of uranium, plutonium and non-nuclear components within nuclear weapons.
The central component of Complex 2030 is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. The official rationale for the RRW program is to produce weapons that are safer and more durable than the warheads in the current stockpile. Supporters of RRW fear that the components of nuclear weapons could wear out and that the only way to know if the warheads are viable is to replace their inner workings. And - the line of thinking continues - as long as scientists are replacing the plutonium or uranium cores, they might as well "tweak" the weapon's design.
But the assertion that the old nuclear weapons need to be replaced by reliable new warheads is undermined by a recent NNSA study that indicates that the existing plutonium triggers, or "pits," may be viable for another 90 to 100 years. The report, issued in November and reviewed by an independent panel of scientists and academics, indicates the need for considerable skepticism of the Complex 2030 claims.
In addition, the RRW program will establish the infrastructure needed for future development of new warheads with new capabilities. A key element of this upgraded and consolidated nuclear infrastructure is a new facility to produce "pits," the plutonium triggers that set off the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. The DOE has proposed constructing a Modern Pit Facility, but Congress has deemed the $2 to $4 billion price tag too steep, and has rejected funding proposals for two years running.
As an alternative, the department is pushing the idea of a Consolidated Plutonium Center (CPC) that would bring all of the plutonium-related activities together at one site. The new facility would be a sort of "modern pit facility-plus," capable each year of producing 125 plutonium pits to trigger nuclear weapons, and at the same time develop new military applications for plutonium.
This more expansive concept is likely to cost more than the facility alone, but NNSA has yet to provide a cost estimate to Congress. A small down payment for the CPC - $24.9 million - is proposed in the FY 2008 budget; budget projections for continuing work on the CPC total $282 million through 2012.
Under Complex 2030, the new CPC will be one of a series "transformed" and "consolidated" nuclear sites. Currently, there are eight facilities - Los Alamos National Laboratory (N.M.), Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Calif.) and Sandia National Laboratories (N.M.), the Nevada Test Site (R&D activities, including sub-critical experiments), the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant in Tennessee (uranium and other components), the Pantex Plant in Texas (warhead assembly, disassembly, disposal), the Kansas City Plant (non-nuclear components), and the Savannah River Site (tritium extraction and handling) in Georgia.
While Complex 2030 would mandate that some of the sites have a smaller "footprint" (less floor space), it would also require the investment of tens of billions of dollars for new or upgraded factories, including two new factories - a Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF) and a Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) - at the Y-12 site; a new Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory to "support plutonium operations"; a new factory for the production of non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons at the current site of the Kansas City plant; and significant upgrades at the Pantex warhead assembly/disassembly facility. The spending on the CPC is only a small portion of the as yet unknown costs of the Complex 2030 initiative. Broken pledges, skeptical Congress
All of this raises concerns for Robert Civiak. A program examiner for Department of Energy national security programs in 1988 and 1989, Civiak now does research for Tri-Valley Cares, a group that advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons. He calls the Reliable Replacement Warhead a "multibillion dollar effort to redesign and replace every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal." Jay Coghlan, executive director at Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, agrees, calling RRW a "nukes forever program, and a Trojan horse for future new designs."
NNSA's planning documents call for the production of the first RRW by 2012, and according to analysis by James Sterngold in the San Francisco Chronicle, the work is already beginning. He writes, "Lab officials said researchers not only have produced extensive designs ... but they have already conducted non-nuclear tests of the critical detonation devices and other components. They have begun to plan in detail how the weapons would be manufactured."
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), the new chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, has criticized the RRW project for its "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" approach. "There appears to have been little thought given to the question of why the United States needs to build new nuclear warheads at this time," he says. "My preference is that the DOE would have spent their resources reconfiguring the old Cold War complex and dismantling obsolete warheads." He has not ruled out slowing or eliminating the RRW if the administration is unable to present a strategy "that defines the future mission, the emerging threats and the specific U.S. nuclear stockpile necessary to achieve strategic goals."
The 110th Congress and Beyond
In an August 2005 speech to a symposium on post-cold war nuclear strategy, Rep. Hobson described the administration's call for research on new bombs and the Nuclear Earth Penetrator as "very provocative and overly aggressive policies that undermine our moral authority to argue that other nations should forgo nuclear weapons."
Hobson's concerns are shared by a number of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Lynne Woolsey (D-Calif.), all of whom joined him in successfully leading an effort to defund the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Skepticism about the need for massive investment in nuclear weapons at a time of huge war bills and growing deficits, a growing sophistication about nuclear issues, and a Democratic majority means that for the first time in years the nuclear weapons complex is feeling the heat.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) represents the state that houses the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which recently won the Reliable Replacement Warhead competition. In a press release issued after the decision, she said, "While I appreciate the fact that Lawrence Livermore was selected, this in no way answers my questions about the Reliable Replacement Warhead program" - a program that she remains "100 percent opposed to."
Despite support from the White House, the DOE, key contractors, and a number of powerful members of Congress such as Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) - all of whom have nuclear weapons facilities in their states or districts - the Complex 2030 plan to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure may be scaled back or rejected by congressional opponents, who will receive backing from arms control and environmental organizations.
But it will take more than cutting a million here or a billion there, more than gunning against a specific corner of the Complex 2030 plan, more than defunding the most aggressive or alarming aspects of the nuclear weapons complex, to deal with nuclear weapons in the 21st century. Members of Congress are going to need to challenge the bedrock of administration foreign policy - that nuclear weapons should occupy center stage as a guarantor of U.S. security.
But they will not do that without being pushed - and pushed hard - by civil society. The urgency of the task creates opportunities for a big tent of strange bedfellows to work together: Weary cold warriors like George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, who in January co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons"; well-established Washington organizations like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Arms Control Association; disarmament activists like Helen Caldicott and the Abolition 2000 network; and members of the international community from the United Nations on down are all saying the same thing: The United States cannot insist that other nations disarm or opt not to pursue nuclear technology, while aggressively ramping up U.S. nuclear capabilities. This hypocrisy cannot stand.
Global security through nuclear disarmament or a world awash in nuclear weapons. The choice is obvious. And it is ours to make.
-------
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Congress Approves Bush's Oil Theft Plan
But don't expect cheaper gasoline. The idea is the control of fuel, not cheaper gas.
What Congress Really Approved:
Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies
By Ann Wright
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
Saturday 26 May 2007
On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal, the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.
This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)
No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.
What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United States military?
Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill, other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.
With the Bush administration's "Support the Troops" bill and its benchmarks, primarily Benchmark No. 1, we finally have the reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to get easily accessible, cheap, high-grade Iraq oil for US corporations.
Now the choice is for US military personnel and their families to decide whether they want their loved ones to be physically and emotionally injured to protect not our national security, but the financial security of the biggest corporate barons left in our country - the oil companies.
It's a choice for only our military families, because most non-military Americans do not really care whether our volunteer military spends its time protecting corporate oil to fuel our one-person cars. Of course, when a tornado, hurricane, flood or other natural disaster hits in our hometown, we want our National Guard unit back. But on a normal day, who remembers the 180,000 US military or the 150,000 US private contractors in Iraq?
Since the "Surge" began in January, over 500 Americans and 15,000 Iraqis have been killed. By the time September 2007 rolls around for the administration's review of the "surge" plan, another 400 Americans will be dead, as well as another 12,000 Iraqis.
How much more can our military and their families take?
Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army and US Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She served 16 years in the US diplomatic corps in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
What Congress Really Approved:
Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies
By Ann Wright
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
Saturday 26 May 2007
On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal, the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.
This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)
No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.
What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United States military?
Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill, other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.
With the Bush administration's "Support the Troops" bill and its benchmarks, primarily Benchmark No. 1, we finally have the reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to get easily accessible, cheap, high-grade Iraq oil for US corporations.
Now the choice is for US military personnel and their families to decide whether they want their loved ones to be physically and emotionally injured to protect not our national security, but the financial security of the biggest corporate barons left in our country - the oil companies.
It's a choice for only our military families, because most non-military Americans do not really care whether our volunteer military spends its time protecting corporate oil to fuel our one-person cars. Of course, when a tornado, hurricane, flood or other natural disaster hits in our hometown, we want our National Guard unit back. But on a normal day, who remembers the 180,000 US military or the 150,000 US private contractors in Iraq?
Since the "Surge" began in January, over 500 Americans and 15,000 Iraqis have been killed. By the time September 2007 rolls around for the administration's review of the "surge" plan, another 400 Americans will be dead, as well as another 12,000 Iraqis.
How much more can our military and their families take?
Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army and US Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She served 16 years in the US diplomatic corps in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
