Silence is Consent

If you don't speak up you accept what is happening. This site was born out of the mainstream media's inability to cover the news. I am just an American cititzen trying to spread the word in the era of FCC consolidation, post 9/11 Patriot Act hysteria, hackable voting machines and war without end. I rant and post news items I perceive to be relevant to our current situation.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
- Thomas Jefferson

Social Security is not broken and therefore does not need to be fixed

So Called Social Security Crisis (SCSSC)

Comments, questions, corrections, rebuttals are always welcome.

Thursday, July 31, 2003
If this wasn't so sad I would be laughing my head off! Sidestepping on Iraq. After you're done reading this click the home button because everything on Common Dreams is worth reading today.

I think today I am just going to post articles and let them speak for themselves, more or less. They are in no particular order.

Thom Hartmann: 'The theft of your vote is just a chip away'.

The scientists were supposed to tells us where everything is, right? No WMD, but plenty of war. More on the scientists, Something to Hide?

A good take on your pResident's press conference yesterday, The usual mangled speech but Bush is let off the hook in rare press conference. I love the British press!

Why does the military support this (mis)Administration? 17 Ex-P.O.W.'s Won't Get Part of Seized Iraq Assets, Judge Says. Couldn't they have let them have a few bucks at least? Here is the last paragraph:
But more recently, in general language in a law passed in April to appropriate money for the Iraq war, Congress authorized the president to void other laws concerning Iraq. In May, President Bush used that authority to void the November law. A lawyer for the former prisoners, Steven A. Fennell, said, "A few general words buried in an appropriations bill" should not "take away the ability of American P.O.W.'s tortured in the dungeons of Iraq to realize a measure of accountability."
Close your eyes and imagine if Tom DeLay was Secretary of State. Now you don't have to, DeLay Says Palestinians Bear Burden for Achieving Peace.

So they issue a terror warning saying terrorists may highjack planes so what does the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) doyou ask? Flip-flop on air marshal schedules. I want to say one thing about this. While the air marshals could help on an old style highjacking, let's not forget that even if no one can stop the highjackers from taking the planes, like on 9/11, the FAA and NORAD still had plenty of time to intercept those planes and keep them from doing what they did. That is what everyone should focus on, (refer to yesterday's 40 lies link, #15). Not just how to stop planes from being highjacked but why standard operating procedure was not followed on 9/11!!

This is just sad. US army admits Iraq suicides.

And now this!? Why The Dots Were Never Connected.

Oh the irony. Deceit, danger mark U.S. pursuit of new WMD. Well after all we gave them to Saddam to begin with.

It was quiet for a few days, wasn't it? 2 US Soldiers Killed in Separate Attacks in Iraq.

Wednesday, July 30, 2003
I'm not sure if you heard about the Policy Analysis Market story yesterday. Those Iran-Contra demons are back in your government and doing it again: Poindexter's Follies. This thing was really bad news for the Bush (mis)Administration. You could tell that by how fast the web site went down: I looked at the web site before lunch yesterday and it was gone after lunch. Everyone is against this thing, but is Wolfie? Here is a little back and forth from him and Sen. Boxer:
At the Foreign Relations hearing, Wolfowitz defended DARPA, saying "it is brilliantly imaginative in places where we want them to be imaginative. It sounds like maybe they got too imaginative," he said, smiling.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D - Calif.) told Wolfowitz, "I don't think we can laugh off that program."

"There is something very sick about it," she said. "And if it's going to end, I think you ought to end the careers of whoever it was thought that up. Because terrorists knowing they were planning an attack could have bet on the attack and collected a lot of money. It's a sick idea."
I can understand brainstorming for ideas, but this one never should have gotten this far.

Wolfie got a full ration yesterday. Senators put the heat on Wolfowitz Bipartisan frustration on Iraq boils over at committee hearing. Is this another sign that the things are changing?

Don't forget what happens when things get tough for these guys. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but did you notice that a New terror alert was issued yesterday? The funny thing about this is that the Color-Coded Terror Alert System Is Losing Meaning for Many. Let's see, they predict a terrorist attack and nothing happpens, they're covered. They predict a terrorist attack and one happens, they're covered. Neat how that works, isn't it?

The Saudis are unable to sway Bush: Bush keeps 28 pages of 9/11 report secret. Most think the Saudis are the nation everyone is talking about in this section of the report. It probably is, but don't forget about Pakistan.


The Bush administration's Top 40 Lies about war and terrorism. Wow, only 40 of 'em?

John Dean is at it again, The 9/11 Report Raises More Serious Questions About The White House Statements On Intelligence. Mainly Condi.

Tuesday, July 29, 2003
One thing I have said since the O.J. trial is that the justice system in this country discriminates based on color. I'm not talking black and white, though. I think it discriminates based on the color GREEN!! The more money a person has, the less justice they get.

To better prove my point read this article: Corporate Crime Without Shame. So, exactly how will they pay their debt to society in the future? Take the Worldcom case for example: $750M Worldcom Settlement OK'd. Steal $11 billiion, pay a $750 million fine. If my math is correct, that is not quite a 7% fine. Not a bad deal. The only difference is that Worldcom also had to pay with its reputation and the corporate officers' names were publicized as well. As the article above states, they will now be able to avoid this altogether by settling these cases before charges are even filed! Is that justice or what?

For all your Texas Democrats news, I have now linked The Burnt Orange Report.

This might be redundant. I've been over this before. But this lady writes some of the best editorials I have read. 16 Words and 28 Pages. It is a very good indictment, and the links are great!

The Washington Post asks, "Can Mr. Bush come out and play?" Meet The Press.

The state of the Republicans in Congress: The Republican House of cards.

Here's one on the Neocons, Pax Americana and (ahem) "Benevolent Global Hegemony"-- and the problems with them (kinda long): Are Neocons cooking their own goose?

Oh yeah, Paul Krugman, You Say Tomato.

Monday, July 28, 2003
If it was incompetence, shouldn't someone have been fired? If you have a job to do, and you screw it up and people die, shouldn't you be fired?

One reason I don't believe our government's story about who was behind 9/11 is because their story always points to an intelligence failure and, in my opinion, incompetence. Yet, nobody has been fired because of it! Why hasn't anybody been fired? I think it's becuase it was not an intelligence 'failure.' If Tenent gets the axe, he'll talk. He knew what was in the President's Daily Briefing (PDB) that was kept out of the recently released report on 9/11. But, it seems, most Americans will buy the idea that it was an intelligence failure, and we should just let it go at that.

Now we have this: Iraq Flap Shakes Rice's Image: Controversy Stirs Questions of Reports Unread, Statements Contradicted. Here is an excerpt from the article:
Democrats, however, see a larger problem with Rice and her operation. "If the national security adviser didn't understand the repeated State Department and CIA warnings about the uranium allegation, that's a frightening level of incompetence," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), who as the ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee has led the charge on the intelligence issue. "It's even more serious if she knew and ignored the intelligence warnings and has deliberately misled our nation. . . . In any case it's hard to see why the president or the public will have confidence in her office."

Another incompetent? Will she--or anyone in this (mis)administration--be fired over this? What would happen to most people if they caused their boss a major public embarrassment by failing to take care of the job the boss assigned to them? It definitely appears that in this (mis)administration that a mistake leading to the deaths of thousands doesn't even get you a pink slip. So why should this latest intelligence 'failure' be any different?

Another sign that The wheels are coming off the Bush spin machine. See what this Kos post points out: Bringing in Baker. You know things are going really bad for Bush when The Fixer gets called in.

Yesterday, Wolfie hit the talk shows, and he is still trying to work the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection: Wolfowitz: Iraq Key To War on Terrorism. DOD Official Cites Links to al Qaeda. Why is he allowed to go on saying this? Especially when you read this:
"Boy, it sure didn't sound murky before the war," Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said on CBS's "Face the Nation" when asked about the Wolfowitz statement. "There were clear connections we were told between al Qaeda and Iraq. There was no murkiness, no nuance, no uncertainty about it at all."
They are digging themselves a hole lined with American taxpayer money. From what I can gather, the US had not been able to get any good intelligence out of Iraq after the inspectors left in 1998. For a good explanation of this go, here: Ex-CIA Agent on Cheney Iraq Speech: "Longest Statement of Disinformation" Ever Fed U.S. Public. From that time on, projections (i.e., estimates, guesses) were made, but these always had best-case and worst-case scenarios for the situations. The worst-case scenarios were always publicized by this administration with no mention of the best-case. The bottom line is that we did not know what Iraq had! But now the truth is coming out. . .

It looks like reality is setting in for some: Bush, Republicans losing support of retired veterans.

This is a great article! I read this after what I wrote today: Can't People See the Emperor's Pants on Fire?

Friday, July 25, 2003
Prior warnings. Saudi Arabia. Saddam not connected with 9/11. No Iraq-Al Qaeda link. The 9/11 report is finally here! ...Well, some of it, at least... Congressional Reports: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.

An analysis by the Washington Post: White House, CIA Kept Key Portions of Report Classified. Here is the opening paragraph:
President Bush was warned in a more specific way than previously known about intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda terrorists were seeking to attack the United States, a report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks indicated yesterday. Separately, the report cited one CIA memo that concluded there was "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi individuals provided financial assistance to al Qaeda operatives in the United States.

I have only one question: If this would have come out last December, as it should have, how would this information have effected people's opinions of the need to go to war with Iraq? All those Iraq-Al Qaeda insinuations? Gone! All those Saddam-responsible-for-9/11 insinuations? Gone!

OK, so I have two questions: Why did we need regime change in Iraq? The two reasons we were given are false, plus he was no imminent threat and has no WMD. All we have left is that he was a bad guy. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there is a ton of oil in Iraq.

William Rivers Pitt on how death always seems to help Bush: Though The Heavens Fall.

This is a great article, but even if it wasn't I would have had to post it for the title alone: George W. Nixon.

Cheney goes on the offensive and Steve Gilliard of Daily Kos gives you Dick Cheney and his lies.

More of The Amazing Stories of Condoleezza Rice.

In case you were wondering who is on the Iraqi Governing Council, here is a list of names and short bios. Notice anyone familiar?

This ad will be appearing in three major papers this Sunday, We Deserve The Truth.

Thursday, July 24, 2003
A little different topic today. Over the last couple of days, I have read an editorial (Progressives must join forces for victory in 2004) and a synopsis of a speech (James Carville's Rx For Democrats). First, an excerpt from the editorial:
So here is my suggestion. Let's start a national dialogue with all who consider themselves liberal, left, green or progressive. Let's take the lead at Fighting Bob Fest on Sept. 6 in Baraboo, where hundreds and perhaps thousands of those desperate for change will congregate to hear great speeches and share ideas. (Bob Fest must be something local?)

Someone must start the national conversation among the sensible. You know, people who want Head Start to thrive, who think we need more money flowing to our schools than our prisons, who want national health care for everyone, who believe the Patriot Act must be repealed and John Ashcroft sent back to the Phyllis Schlafly charm school.

This guy talks about the need for all of us who want regime change here in America to get behind the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is, to get Bush out of office. Of course, his speculation is that it will be Dean, Kerry, or Kucinich. Both he and Carville stress the fact that the Republicans are packing and using the courts to cement their hold. The only way to stop that is to elect a Democratic president. Say what you want, but any Democrat running would appoint better judges than Bush. Carville makes one of the best points yet:
Recent political history shows Democrats win when they stand up and fight, he said.

"In '88 we let the GOP walk all over us. We lost," Carville said. "In '92, we fought back and won. In '94, we went soft and lost. They tried impeachment. We fought back, we won. In 2000, we let them walk all over us in Florida. In 2002, we let them roll over us in Congress. In 2004, we know better..."
This is also evidenced by the Senate runoff election in Louisiana in '02 where Mary Landrieu took on the Republicans directly and won that election. And we shouldn't forget to mention redistricting in Texas. Have you called your elected officials yet? Carville also talks about writing a check and getting involved. Here is one way to get involved in the upcoming constitutional amendment election: Texans Against Prop 12.

If you think we need to save social programs, have a government that is for the people and I mean all of the people--not just those that can afford to play the game--if you want a more civil society, if you want the world to think of America as a model again, or if you just want to be able to look at your president again without disgust, it's time to get involved!!

My-oh-my, fresh evidence of more lies: 9-11 report shows no Iraq-Al Qaeda link. Hmph! Imagine that! The first link inside this post is from a UPI report. Max Cleland is leading the charge. I think this gets to the heart of it:
The revelation is likely to embarrass the Bush administration, which made links between Saddam's support for bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction -- a major plank of its case for war.

"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."

It hasn't stopped yet: U.S. Soldiers Killed in Area where Saddam Sons Died.

Two items of good news: Congress Has Second Thoughts On Patriot Act and House Votes to Block FCC Media Rule.

Election fraud makes it to the American press: Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say. Here is the Johns Hopkins report: ISI Researchers Identify Security Flaws in Electronic Voting System.

Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Unless you were locked in a closet yesterday, I'm sure by now you know that the Hussein boys Uday and Qusay are dead. I hope this will somehow help put a stop to the daily killing of our soldiers. In many people's eyes, this is the beginning of the end for the Iraqi resistance. In other people's eyes, these were just two former bad guys who had been out of power for almost four months now. Here is a link that talks about both opinions: Wishful Thinking. I'll just say that I am taking a wait and see approach.

Here is a good roundup of the problem from the dailykos: Who is the enemy? I'm not sure if getting Big Daddy Saddam would make much difference. Kos' site has much more on this and other pertinent topics. One more slant on this that needs to be examined (read the comments too): Okay, they're dead. Now what?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, I don't care, just remember what FDR once said, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” The heat has been turned up on the White House more lately than at any other time since before 9/11--and you remeber what happened then! So to sum up: this will hopefully stop the killing of our soldiers in Iraq and lead to a more sane reconstrution process, but then again, don't be surprised if we get more of the same, even if they get Saddam too.

If something like this ever makes it into the mainstream media, we will know that Bush is on his way out: Fraud Traced to the White House: How California’s energy scam was inextricably linked to a war for oil scheme. This basically tells the story of how the plan for invading Iraq was hatched before, during, and after the 2000 election--well before 9/11! And the reason was going to be an "energy crisis." But then the neocons got involved and their "catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor", took the place of the energy crisis. Refer back to the FDR quote above.

So, more on what was coming out yesterday before Uday and Qusay stole the show. Apparently nobody believed that Tenent (the first fall guy) cleared the speech, so now we have a new fall guy: White House official 'forgot' uranium warnings. The Washinton Post has a good one as well: Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA The end of this aritcle is comical. Drip, drip, drip. Now do you see the need for Uday and Qusay?

This is what happens if you speak out: The Integrity and Dignity of the White House Become a Scum Pond of Betrayals and Gutter Smears Under Bush. So remember: silence is consent, but making noise could have a price. A little more fuel for the fire: If You're Not Paranoid, You're Not Paying Attention.

FCC Update. Everybody thinks it's a bad idea, so Bush is for it: Republicans Are Adding Weight to Reversal of F.C.C. Media Rule. If you want to remind your representative which side you are on, you can go here to let them know: Alert for Tuesday, July 22: Call the House Today!

Oh, and Two U.S. Soldiers Killed in Attacks.

This is hilarious: Weapons of Mass Redaction.

Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Here is what this argument comes down to: Why did the "Amercian people" go along with Bush and allow this war? Because we were told that Saddam was an imminent threat and that he could use WMD ("nucular", chemical, and biological) against us at any moment. They also inferred that he was working with Al Qaeda and that he was responsible for September 11th.

If they would have made the case that Saddam was a bad guy and therefore had to go, no one--other than these people's family members and the corporations they represent--would have been for this war!!! (As my wife likes to say, what about all the "bad guys" in Africa (Charles Taylor, Robert Mugabe) and North Korea? and South America? What about China's human rights record? Except for Venezuela and Nigeria, none of them has enough oil.)

So, every time you read or hear anyone say that, don't let them get away with it. We were not conned into this war because they kept saying Saddam was a bad guy over and over. They used the ol' fear factor and now we know they made it all up, while periodically raising the terror alerts to keep people off balance. Curious, isn't it, that the terror alerts have been increased after such things as the recent bombing in Saudi Arabia, when, purportedly, the American intelligence community knew this was a possibility and had warned the Saudis? Remember the frenzy over duct tape and plastic wrap?

Krugman on patirotism: Who's Unpatriotic Now?

Here's a question, Was the war necessary?

Give the readers what they want: Readers Want Press to Cover All U.S. Casualties .

And so it goes: Soldier Killed in Ambush North of Baghdad.

The Asia Times on our situation: The consequences of invasion.

Trying to cover-up, the White House blow's a CIA agent's cover: A White House Smear.

Monday, July 21, 2003
Today, I open with a quote:
Alexander Tyler's
‘The Cycle of Democracy’

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

Tyler was a 18th century historian/economist who wrote ‘The Cycle of Democracy’ in 1778. This quote is the central thesis from his work.
See if you can tell where we are in the cycle. Maybe reading this will help: A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy. When I read articles like this one, it hurts the most. I guess I have always kind of believed in what I was taught in hisotry class, you know, a government of, by, and for the people,... we hold these truths to be self-evident ... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then, slowly, over the last 20 years of my life, to have that ideal shattered is very disconcerting. As I have come into the light and have seen the truth of American history, there are many things about which we have been lied to over the years: All political assassinations in our history, Pearl Harbor, the U2 spyplane incident, the USS Liberty, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, 9/11, and now the war in Iraq, just to name a few. Not a pretty picture.

Well, as the title infers, are you silent? If you are, you must agree with what is happening, as we head from apathy to dependency--and you know where we go from there.

More death: U.S. soldier, Iraqi interpreter die in ambush. I believe in addition to this four more soldiers died over the weekend. For the actual number, go here: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

I have a few words about this story: Taliban fighters return to ambush coalition forces. This story tells of how the Taliban was able to regroup in Pakistan. Now, I want you to look at a few lines from the pResident's first SOTU speech in January of 2002:
Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. (Applause.) So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it. (Applause.)...

[then later]

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. (Applause.)

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.)
Can you believe that?! Pakistan allows the Taliban to regroup, and they are attacking our soldiers again. Fifteen of the 19 highjackers reportedly came from Saudi Arabia (0 from Iraq). Why are we allowing Pakistan to harbor our enemy and not going after them?! He said we would not allow this! Where is the press on this?! We treat Musharaf like he's one of our best allies. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in this? I guess Musharraf has not become expendable yet.

Wolfowitz made this statement today while in Iraq:
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq," said Wolfowitz, who is touring the country to meet U.S. troops and Iraqi officials.
Here is the rest of the story, Wolfowitz Warns Iraq's Neighbors Not to Interfere. I have no comment--yet.

The Bush connection to PNAC, Like Father, Like Son.

Howard Dean has a few questions for Bush, President Bush Must Set the Niger-Uranium Story Straight.

Common Dreams has many good stories linked over the past few days. I recommend going there and looking around.

No mention of Pakistan. Remember Afghanistan was already liberated. Bush warns Iran and Syria. It's time for regime change in America!

Friday, July 18, 2003
What impression did you get from the whole Tony Blair thing yesterday? To me, the White House said, "we need to bring in a guy who speaks well to tell our side of the story". Voila, Tony! When you listen to these two guys talk about the problems with the evidence, they keep saying "I believe" all the time, not "the intelligence showed". Blair:
But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive. (from Tony's speech to Congress)
Here is what your pResident had to say at the Bush, Blair press conference. (Scroll down to the middle of the page to find the question and answer part.)
I say that because he possessed chemical weapons and biological weapons. I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. And I will remind the skeptics that in 1991, it became clear that Saddam Hussein was much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anybody ever imagined. He was a threat. I take responsibility for dealing with that threat.
These guys both "believe" but they have no evidence, as of yet, to back it up their beliefs. The above quote from Bush implies that we were justified in attacking Iraq because of what they had 12 years ago. We keep hearing about what they had in '91, what they had in '98. They will no longer say what the current intelligence told them they had.

Try looking at it from this perspective: He didn't have weapons. He was contained. He was not a threat. He was not working with Al Qaeda.

What did we do? We invaded a country crippled by 12 years of sanctions. We killed thousands of people.

For what? Well, there are many theories about that: Oil. To remake the Middle East. A show of force. To stop terrorism.

Will history forgive you and your leadership when it becomes clear that you attacked a defensless country for the wrong reasons? When you read the above quote from Blair, he is saying, "Even if everything we told you before the war is wrong, I still believe we did the right thing".

If, before the war, Bush and Blair would have made the case on humanitarian grounds, this would be understandable. The main push for justifying the war was to play on our fears: all the death that Saddam could (read "potentially") cause us. The only time they talked about the bad things Saddam did in his own country was to say, "he gassed his own people". Only after Iraq was conquered, when they started drilling dry holes on the weapons thing, did they start pumping (no pun intended) the humanitarian angle.

So, we just have to trust these guys? They have already lied to us. So we're supposed to be assured that as long as they believe this stuff to be true, everything is OK?

A MUST READ This sums it all up. Cake Walk.

Remember how the (mis)administration said the adults are back in charge? Bush won't take responsibility for own words.

This looks interesting: CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS. Maybe we did do it for the oil.

Read what Nixon's counsel, John Dean, has to say about Bush's SOTU speech: Why A Special Prosecutor's Investigation Is Needed To Sort Out the Niger Uranium And Related WMDs Mess.

Paul Krugman is back: Passing It Along.

And it continues: U.S. soldier killed in Iraq blast.

This is an interesting story about a Bush judge up for confirmation, that involves our former AG now Senator John Cornyn: GOP Attorneys General Asked For Corporate Contributions.

This looks fishy, Body 'Matches' Iraq Expert.

Remember the scientist that had the stuff buried in his garden? Iraqi scientist counters U.S. claims on tubes, bomb project.<

Thursday, July 17, 2003
In our country, it is impossible to get the truth from the American media. I'm not sure who saw this, but I am going to show you with transcripts from the White House web site just exactly how they lie and cover it up. The pResident is asked what seems like an innocuous question:

Q So even though there has been some question about the intelligence -- the intelligence community knowing beforehand that perhaps it wasn't, you still believe that when you gave it --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the speech that I gave was cleared by the CIA. And, look, the thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data. Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when I gave the -- when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech. I'm not interested in talking about intelligence unless it's cleared by the CIA. And as Director Tenet said, it was cleared by the CIA.

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.

Thank you.
Anyone who has payed the slightest bit of attention to pre-Iraq war debate knows that Saddam Hussein allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq. What the pResident said was wrong! But just in case you missed it: Weapons Inspectors Leave Iraq:
U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad for the first time in four years on Nov. 27, 2002 and resumed inspections two days later. During four months of inspections, arms experts traveled the length of the country hunting for banned weapons of mass destruction.
Was he lying or did he just misspeak? Well, listen to what Ari's replacement, Scott McClellan, has to say about it:
Q Two quick questions, one on Iraq. When the President said of Saddam Hussein, we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in and he wouldn't let them in, why didn't he say that, when the inspectors went into Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: What he was referring to was the fact that Saddam Hussein was not complying with 1441, that he continued his past pattern and refused to comply with Resolution 1441 of the United Nations Security Council, which was his final opportunity to comply. And the fact that he was trying to thwart the inspectors every step of the way, and keep them from doing their job. So that's what he's referring to in that statement.

Q But that isn't what he said.

(He was later asked about this again)

Q I just have my own quick question, but first I want to clarify what you said to Dana. Basically, are you -- on the inspections in Iraq, are you clarifying that, or saying that, or conceding that he mis-spoke?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, what I was saying was that he was referring to the fact that he was trying to keep the inspectors from doing their job. Saddam Hussein was not complying with Resolution 1441. He would not let them do their job. So that's not --

Q -- possible, but people mis-speak all the time. It's possible that he did mis-speak.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's what I've said. I've addressed this two or three times now.
I get two things from this: (1) he didn't misspeak and (2) he was really referring to Resolution 1441 which he never even mentioned. Can anyone explain that to me? Why isn't the media in the country all over this? Is the media in this country dead? If it's not, it's on life support: Are U.S. journalists truly spineless?

More on the morale of our troops: A Big Letdown. You have to read the first few paragraphs of this one, where the sergeant talks about the "aces" in his deck.

If anyone wants to see the Niger uranium documents here they are: Obvious Flaws.

And so it goes: Tenet Testimony Raises New Furor.

Wednesday, July 16, 2003
I think Bush's problem is getting too big to ignore. A democratic senator is speaking out about "a pattern of exaggerations and misleading statements": Faked intelligence on Iraq part of a pattern of White House dissemblance: senator.

A good story of this (mis)administration's lies, not just Iraq, but on the economy and the environment as well: Nothing Left To Lie About With BushCo reaming the nation on just about every possible front, is implosion imminent?

This editorial points out the difference between opinion and fact: The press gives Bush a free ride on his lies.

More death: U.S. soldier killed in Baghdad convoy attack. Just looking at the American media web sites it appears the coverage of this is becoming more intense.

The people I feel the worst for are our troops and their families: "We knew, we just knew".

What was that country we invaded before Iraq? Afghan, Afghanis, er..... Afghan Minister Warns U.S. Credibility at Stake.

Oh yeah--we forgot to tell you--while you were all worried about us lying and our soldiers still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the deficit got bigger: The Bush disaster in color .

Sign this petition, Bush is Mad! Invoke the 25th Amendment.

This is an interesting little tidbit, haven't been able to find anything on the Committee for the Republic yet, Manifesto Warns of Dangers Associated With an Empire.

Tuesday, July 15, 2003
When you think of Democracy, what comes to mind? For me, the first theme that comes to mind is: a government of, by and for the people. Therefore, the topic I am writing about today is the biggest threat to our democracy: fixing elections. I believe this is the most important issue facing our country right now. You might think that sounds silly with all that is coming to light right now. We have had liars in office before and have been able to deal with them one way or another.

If our current pResident is a liar, and he can fix the next election, one of the most basic tenants of democracy will be gone: choosing our representation. A fixed election will not only insure his reelection but it will also insure that both houses continue to have a Republican majority, and therefore, no chance of impeachment.

There are many rumors about what will happen when his second term is up. One is brother Jeb will run. Another is that further terror attacks will prompt the implementation of Patriot Act II (Ashcroft Returns), and with that they can suspend elections.

So, today I am pointing you to an expose by the online news agency, Scoop. The expose is called, Bigger Than Watergate. There are many links and companion stories and it is a tedious and involved subject.

I first heard of this through the web site, They believe this is just the tip of the iceberg, and it says nothing of what happened in Florida in 2000. You might be asking “What can I do?” Well, they are asking anyone with interest and/or computer skills to help them continue looking into this. Please help if you can. Democracy in our world may not survive without it.

It is starting to become unclear whether our pResident even cares what comes out of his mouth anymore, President Defends Allegation On Iraq. I love this part:
Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.

The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.
This is starting to get messier by the minute. A memo to the pResident from, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Paul Krugman, Pattern of Corruption is back. The "I" word is coming out in the press, A Firm Basis for Impeachment. What's next, 16 Words, and Counting? We will just have to wait and see.

All your Texas redistricting information, Burnt Orage Report.

Monday, July 14, 2003
It looks like this story has legs. I could post stories from here to the moon about the lies of the Bush (mis)administration. They now are trying to spin the Niger comment that was in the State of the Union speech (SOTU). They are saying that:
While continuing to acknowledge, as the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did last week, that the phrase should not have been uttered, they emphasized today that the British had indeed, as Mr. Bush said, reported Iraq's interest in acquiring African uranium.
Let me see: it was correct, but it should not have been in the speech. Is that doublespeak? At the very least, it's a cheesy way to run a government. I think that the (mis)administration wanted something about "nucular" weapons in the speech because nothing instills fear like nukes. So even though they knew the information was false, they could get around it later, if it came out, by saying, 'we said it based on what the British said.' Now we find an article discussing the fact that the CIA had told the British that the Niger claim was wrong.
'The media has reported that the CIA expressed reservations to us about this element [the Niger connection] of the September dossier. This is correct. However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which had not been shared with the US. A judgment was therefore made to retain it.'
At this point, I think the way they are trying to get out of this is by saying it was just one line in one speech. The problem is that they lied about the whole reason for the war. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! Maureen Dowd does a good job of explaining what's going on: National House of Waffles. A good listen on this subject can be found here: Sen. Jay Rockefeller: WMD Flap 'Far From Over'. He says that it goes beyond the Niger case and into the whole case for WMD.

This is just like the September 11th story. As soon as a person understands that the president lied about WMD, they can start to understand the whole issue. Then they can see that the Wolfowitz comment, “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,” explains it all. What this statement says is that it was just something we could all agree on that would scare the public into going along on an invasion of Iraq. From there, they had to dig up evidence to support their cause and if they had to play with the facts a little, well, it's for our own good. We, the American people, are just too stupid to understand. I don't know when or how this will end. I hope the intelligence community doesn't lay down and take the fall for this. I hope everyone pays attention and digs through all the reporting going on to find out the facts for themselves.

A great summation of the whole issue: The Dubious Suicide of George Tenet.

A list of the lies so far, 20 Lies About the War.

An LA Times profile of Dennis J. Kucinich.

And it continues: U.S. soldier killed in Iraq ambush.


Friday, July 11, 2003
I really don't know what to say anymore. I must sound like a broken record: Bush lied. He lied about WMD, 9/11, the cost of war in Iraq, the tax cuts and the economy, education, his previous business practices, etc.... When will our country start paying attention?

That sounds like a broken record as well. Are we seeing a change? CBS has picked up on the lies: Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious. Even the Democrats seem to be coming alive: War's Cost Brings Democratic Anger.

I'm going with the broken record theme today. Go to and from there you can send an e-mail to your congresscritter, asking them to support an investigation into the distortion of evidence.

CBS may be getting it: Just Call Him Old Stonewall.

Where have all the Neocons gone? Where is Iraq War Instigator, Richard Perle? Can't say I miss him....

They have some nerve! Report on Bonuses Raises Ire . Love this paragraph:
"It's typical of the Bush administration to reward the elite and ignore working Americans," said Diane Witiak, a spokeswoman for the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union. "This is reflected in his tax cuts and his privatization policies that favor his big corporate friends, and in his treatment of government workers. He says he cares about federal employees, he respects them and they're doing a good job. But then he slams them every time."

One from here in Austin: Fox News Fauxs Up.

Sen. Byrd is at it again: Our Troops Need Assistance, Not Isolation . He also has sent a letter to Rummy asking him questions from his concerned constituents.

Tom Tomorrow cartoon: Technical Bifficulties.

Thursday, July 10, 2003
They are admitting the lies right in front of our faces: Rumsfeld brushes aside WMD fears. This quote says it all:
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11," he (Rumsfeld) said.
Remember, if you get in a tight spot say "9/11."

I like this editorial: True Lies.

This hits just keep coming: Why the CEO in Chief Needs an Audit

This could be fun: 9-11 report, soon to be released, will be 'explosive' .

Do you remember the aluminum tubes? Focus turns to tubes sought by Saddam.

This NYT editorial from yesterday on the stonewalling of the independent commission brings up and interesting irony.
In a status report on its work, the commission said various agencies — particularly the Pentagon and the Justice Department — were blocking requests for vital information and resources. Acting more like the Soviet Kremlin than the American government, the administration has insisted that monitors from various agencies attend debriefings of key officials by investigators. Mr. Kean is quite correct in objecting to this as a thinly veiled attempt at intimidation. Meanwhile, the clock is running for the commission to complete a full report to the nation by next May.
Do you recall, before our invasion of Iraq, when the inspectors were still there and they would try to interview the scientists? We were always being told that we could not get the answers we wanted becuase the scientists always had a government official with them. I wonder if that same argument applies to this?

Two more dead in Iraq: Bush admits Iraq 'security problems'.

More intelligence people coming out: White House 'lied about Saddam threat' .

More on the free enterprise system we brought to Afghanistan: Afghan Poppies Proliferate .

The British see the light: Iraq weapons 'unlikely to be found'.

Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Some days are better than others. From a news standpoint, today looks like a pretty good one. I have not seen a flood of negative news like this about the (mis)administration ever. I received all of these in one e-mail.

White House 'warned over Iraq claim'.

IAEA Letter Raises New Questions about Administration Use of Forged Iraqi Evidence.

Democrats renew calls for probe over flawed Iraq intelligence.

Court Rejects Bid to Stop Cheney Lawsuit.

Crash caused Lynch's 'horrific injuries'.

9/11 Commission Says U.S. Agencies Slow Its Inquiry.

MoD report pours scorn on evidence for Iraqi weapons.


Of course I know this is only one day and that tomorrow everything could change. But still, it is nice to see.

I was watching C-SPAN last night and saw Prime Minister Tony Blair being grilled before a committee. It was very interesting to watch the back and forth between him and the ministers. But as I'm sitting there watching that, I'm trying to imagine our pResident before a committee in his shirt sleeves getting grilled like that. I'll tell you this: it sure was funny scene in my mind's eye.

This is just too funny: Bush on the board not worth much, says Carlyle founder. That's our MBA president he's talking about.

Wow! Bush's War Against Evil .

A little background: Lessons of History in Iraq.

Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Occasionally, I am going to start talking about other subjects. A few of my favorites off the top of my head are: depleted uranium, Israel/Palestine, more on 911, and vote fraud. These are just a few. Today's topic: The Carlyle Group.

If you have time and want a very good primer this is it: Exposed: The Carlyle Group. (First few minutes are in Dutch, then the rest in English). For a shorter, audio-only primer, listen to this: Business Journalist Dan Briody. Here is a link to Mr. Briody's current book and a Buzzflash interview: What Did Eisenhower Mean When He Warned of a Military Industrial Complex? Take a Look at the Carlyle Group. One last thing from Mr. Briody: if you need a short introduction to The Carlyle Group read this: Carlyle's way.

I know that is quite a bit to choose from, but this is an important subject. People always want to know what the motivation is for the Bush administration to want to start wars all over the world. When you understand Carlyle and the conflict of interest, it helps immensely. It also helps to explain why we do not go after Saudi Arabia for any of their terrorism support. The president's dad, a former president himself, is a paid consultant and goes around the world lobbying foreign leaders. When the Red Herring article tells of how Daddy spearheaded Carlyle's effort in S. Korea, all I can see in my mind are the images of him here in Austin at Samsung: Former President Bush, Governor Perry Join Samsung to Launch Chip Plant Upgrade.

I wonder if the war in Iraq is good for Carlyle? I wonder if increasing the defense budget is good for Carlyle? I wonder if never-ending war is good for Carlyle? Just think: your government spent $40 million investigating Whitewater. Makes you go 'hmmmm......'

A MUST READ Iraq: the human toll. It's two parts.

It wasn't a lie if he believed it to be true: White House Backs Off Claim on Iraqi Buy .

This is hilarious: Ari on Niger problem. They announce this and where is the pResident? Africa!

William Rivers Pitt on the intelligence community coming out: The Insiders Are Coming Out.

Another intelligence source speaks, More Evidence Bush Misled Nation.

This looks cool, find out about your government representatives, Government Information Awareness.

Another Canadian's take on all this, U.S. falling into bin Laden's trap.

An update on the September 11th commission, White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation.

Monday, July 07, 2003
Today, I want to pose a question. I'm not sure I have the answer, but it is something we should all be thinking about: How do we get rid of the current bunch of people that have a stranglehold on our government?

I pose this question after reading this article: The Times‘ William Safire: an old Nixon hand covers for Bush’s WMD lies, which is a critique of this article and it's author: 'You lied to us', (originally published on June 2, 2003 in the New York Times). Articles like Safire's demonstrate that a certain segment of the population will try to rationalize the WMD debate in any way they can, no matter what the evidence shows. Remember that last part: NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS. This is not just a Republican/right wing phenomena. It happens with Democrats/liberals too. But it shows what the fight is about in the upcoming election.

There is an old axiom my father taught me that says that in an election, one-third vote Democrat, no matter what; one-third vote Republican, no matter what; and the last third are undecided. The party that wins them over, wins the election. I tend to believe that to a certain extent. I also think the two parties believe that, which is why they usually run to the extreme side of their platforms in the primaries, and then come back to the middle in the general election--to try to win that undecided one-third. So, one way to win the next election, if you subscribe to this theory, is to run the more centrist campaign and try to expose the other side as extremist.

I would like to offer a different take. I believe a higher percentage of the voting age population, not registered voters, lean more toward Democratic principles. Therefore, I believe that firing up the Democratic base would turn more of the voting age population out to register and vote and propel the Democratic candidate to victory. To do this, we would need a candidate who can turn out the party faithful who haven't been voting as well as more of the non-voters. If we happen to turn a few undecided heads, so much the better.

To show how this battle is playing out right now inside the Democratic Party, read these two pieces. First an article from the two heads of the DLC: Activists Are Out of Step. Then a reply the article: To the Heads of the DLC Who Seem More Interested in Following Than Leading: They Too Have Failed and Now are Frantically, Recklessly Trying to Preserve a Power Base Within a Losing Strategy .

So I guess that maybe the way to look at this is that we are not trying to sway those who normally vote, but instead are trying to get those who don't vote onto our side. If you don't vote or you know someone who doesn't, ask them or yourself, why not? The easy excuse is that 'my vote doesn't count'. Take an informal survey on this one. See how many people say that to you and then tell them that if everyone who said that voted, this country sure would look different. Start a conversation about it and do your best to bring them along.

The skinny on the Niger uranium from the source: What I Didn't Find in Africa. The Washington Post follows up: Ex-Envoy: Nuclear Report Ignored. The last few paragraphs of this story are very enlightening.

More U.S. casualties. 3 G.I.'s Killed in Iraqi Capital, One With U.S. Officials.

One on the troops: Troop Morale in Iraq Hits 'Rock Bottom'.

A Canadian view of our situatioin: Red, white and worried.

Reality in Iraq: "That is what you get for working with the Americans".

Friday, July 04, 2003

The Declaration of Independence

When is the last time you read this?

Thursday, July 03, 2003
So, I begin my daily rounds on the Internet to see what is going on, and the first item I see is this: Bush Utters Taunt About Militants: 'Bring 'Em On'. Two quotes from this article. First, the pResident:
"There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush said. Extending his right hand for emphasis, he added: "My answer is: Bring 'em on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." He promised to "deal with them harshly" if attacks continue.
Second, from someone who actually served their complete time in the military:
Though Congress is in recess, some Democrats criticized Bush's "bring 'em on" statement. "I am shaking my head in disbelief," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). "When I served in the Army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander -- let alone the commander in chief -- invite enemies to attack U.S. troops." Lautenberg's statement said Bush's words were "tantamount to inciting and inviting more attacks against U.S. forces."
The next item I see is this: Jobless rate up to 6.4%. You have to read these paragraphs:
"I think it's important to take a look behind the numbers," Chao told CNNfn Thursday. "As the economy gains steam and people gain confidence about their job prospects they will declare themselves back in the job market and the unemployment rate may increase. That's I think what we're seeing today."

But Anthony Chan, chief economist of Banc One Investment Advisors, said that the return of people to the job market, while a reason behind the increase in unemployment rate, is not necessarily good news.

"The good news is that if so many people are entering the labor force it must mean that they are perceiving an improvement in the economy's prospects," Chan said. "The bad news, however, is that if too many people become optimistic about their job prospects, then the unemployment rate will continue to push higher. And the higher unemployment rate does have a damaging impact on consumers. They see it and they think, 'I shouldn't be spending money.' That's one of reason the unemployment rate is so important. It's the one that drives what happens on main street."
Boy, statistics are funny things! What does the 'unemployment rate' count? To me, this says that the unemployment rate counts the people who are currently collecting benefits and are actively looking for jobs. It does not count those who have quit looking altogether. If you read the second to last paragraph, you see this:
However, the government report also showed there were 2.0 million unemployed people who had been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer, an increase of 410,000 over the year. They represented 21.4 percent of the total unemployed, up from 18.8 percent a year earlier. Chan said the percentage of unemployed people who have exhausted unemployment benefits is now near an all-time hire(sic).
From this, I get that the number being reported is not the actual percentage of people who are unemployed. If you quit looking, you are not counted anymore. Just something to think about. If anyone can help me clarify this further, let me know and I will post the info. So what does this tell us? Once again I am not an expert in this area, but even going behind the numbers, I do not think this is good news. But I guess we will have to wait and see.

Looks like Rummy is starting to get some heat. Rumsfeld's Rules is an interesting article with links. Also, Peace 101: Welcome to Rumsfeld U.

A word on the tax cut: ''Millionaires' welfare''.

Looks like they're 'Bringin' Em On', Eight US soldiers wounded as Iraqi violence continues unabated.

Here is a little different spin on the WMD issue, Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq.

A little humor. Tom Tomorrow, This Modern World: Play it as it Lies. One from The Onion, Bush asks Congress for $30 Billion To Help Fight War on Criticism.

I haven't devoted any time to this but here is an editorial on the proposed overtime changes, Picking Workers' Pockets.

Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Anybody here from Texas? If you are and don't like this redistricting stuff, it's time to get busy! Call these people:
Governor Rick Perry- R (512) 463-2000

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst - R (512) 463-0001


Senator Bill Ratliff- R (512) 463-0101

Senator Jeff Wentworth- R (512) 463-0125

Senator Ken Armbrister- D (512) 463-0118

Senator Frank Madla- D (512) 463-0119

Senator Eddie Lucio- D (512) 463-0127

If you don't make your opinion known, it is worthless. Silence is consent, remember? E-mail is fine too, but from what I was told, your elected officials respond best to personal visits and then to phone calls. You can call your house member as well, but the house is considered a done deal. If anyone needs help with information on how to contact someone other than those above, feel free to contact me and I will help you any way I can. If you want to see the latest map, go here and click the button at the bottom of the bulleted list. Look for the last congressional plan on the list.

I want to recommend a Texas organization you can register with. They are sending e-mail updates about what is going on with the legislature: Texas Grassroots Network. Their name should make it obvious what they are about. They are starting in Central Texas, but want this to go statewide. So, if you live outside the counties listed, please contact them about your county.

The special session does not seem to be going the way the Republicans/DeLay wanted it to. I don't think they wanted this much publicity. They were hoping just to slide this through and hope nobody noticed. At this point, at least, it looks like they miscalculated.

There are some very good signs out there: All the people showing up at the redistricting hearings; growing pressure on the Bush administration about the war--even some of the press are starting to pay attention. There's even a woman at my daughter's day care who is fed up. Another person now knows she is not alone. This is what we have to do. Any time you hear someone complain, drop this on them: "Welcome to George Bush's America!!", and wait for their response. Maybe you can bring someone along.

What I say next is a caution and it is not something I like to think about: If the pressure gets too bad, it may be time to ratchet the fear back up. Last time Bush was getting trouble this bad was around September 2001. They govern with fear and division--remember that, no matter what they say!

A recap of the Moveon primary: After The MoveOn Primary.

War without end, Amen. Bush: Iraq Transformation Is a 'Long-Term' Project .

This is really long, but looks good: BEYOND BUSH - Part I.

More of our humble foreign policy: U.S. Bans Military Aid to Almost 50 Countries.

This looks very interesting, A Declaration of Energy Independence.

I can't remember if I already posted this but it is a good read. US shooting in the dark in Afghanistan.

Do you know how Bush is treating the military? Army Time editorial, complete .

Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Some days, I just don't know where to start. So hold on, and I will try to get through it all.

Over the weekend, we found the recent Gore Vidal book, Dreaming War, at our local used book store. It begins with the stolen election and moves quickly on to September 11th. Then, it started again. It was like what I talked about yesterday, when someone else starts to see reality. Reading about it again, I got some of those same feelings I got when I first started to see the truth. Now, it's mostly anger (I'm way past denial). And frustration. And the need to tell everyone.

Today I read this, The Attack Has Been Spectacular, and it started again. (It is kinda long, but worth it.) This blog is one way I fulfill the need to tell everyone. I believe I said this once before on here: I do not know what the truth is, but I am sure what we are being told is not the truth.

It is our duty as citizens of this country to force OUR government to tell us the truth, or we must replace our government. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell anyone who will listen! The fate of your country is at stake. Do you believe your country should be going around the world starting wars? Do you believe in tax cuts for the rich at the expense of all social programs for the less fortunate? Do you believe in separation of church and state? Do you believe in the right to privacy? The Bill of Rights? If you do, you had better speak up!

The best book on September 11th so far is The War on Freedom.

More dead Americans. Four US soldiers killed, two wounded in Baghdad attack. (Loved this quote: "the incident has not been qualified as an attack yet.") An update: 6 U.S. Soldiers Killed, 4 Injured In Baghdad: Reports. Notice the difference, if you will, between the two reports. Not necessarily in facts, but content. On closer look these are conflicting reports. Doing a search on this stuff reports can be found anywhere from 6 Americans wounded to six dead. This story and the Explosion at Mosque Kills Five Iraqis are still evolving.

Articles on Texas redistricting:
Two from the Washington Post: Still a Bad Idea; Drawing the Line On Redistricting.
NY Times: Across U.S., Redistricting as a Never-Ending Battle.
A little closer to home, the Houston Chronicle: Bickering kicks off Legislature's special session.

A little mainstream media on the Saudis. Exclusive: The Saudis—Straddling Both Sides

A good article on the blame game in Iraq: Damage control and blame games.

It's good to see the honesty and integrity back in the White House, isn't it? As 2004 Nears, Bush Pins Slump on Clinton.


Powered by Blogger