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.

Tuesday, September 30, 2003
There was a little story that blew up yesterday. In case you missed it, Plame Affair Finally Gets Legs. There is all kinds of reporting on this. Right now TalkingPointsMemo has some very good stuff on this. Scottie got tore up yesterday at the White House briefing. This from the man who started all this, CIA Leak Is Big Trouble For Bush. One more, Does A Felon Rove The White House? One last thing on this. Why now? I hate the way I think right now but what are we going to miss because of this? Is this an attempt to sneak something by us? The $87 billion maybe. I don't know but keep the smokescreen idea in the back of your mind.

The last one on this I swear. Will Rivers Pitt, The Most Insidious of Traitors.

Can you just feel the compassion?
HUME: When things go badly, as many people would feel they have been in Iraq with the continuing casualties and struggles and difficulties, do you ever doubt?

BUSH: I don't think they're going badly. I mean, obviously I think they're going badly for the soldiers who lost their lives, and I weep for that person and their family. But no, I think we're making good progress. As I said I pray for calmness when the seas are storming, and I -- you know, my faith is an integral part of being who I am, and I'm not going to change.
.Two under the title, Welcome to George Bush's America:
-Numbers of Americans with and without Health Insurance Rise, Census Bureau Reports.
-Poverty, Income See Slight Changes; Child Poverty Rate Unchanged, Census Bureau Reports.

The NY Times gets the corruption story. Washington Insiders' New Firm Consults on Contracts in Iraq.

Krugman's latest, Who's Sordid Now?

Monday, September 29, 2003
Now I'm getting sick. I listen to Mike Malloy the next day. I usually don't listen to him on Monday because it is Fridays show which by then is usually old news. I made a point to listen today because he was having Bev Harris of Blackboxvoting on. If you want to know what is up with the voting machine scandal go and download Mike Malloy's Friday 9/26 show. (The interview with Bev Harris starts in the second hour). If this is allowed to continue to go on our Democracy is over! That is not a joke.

Oh yeah, here is a link to Pundit Pap (A round up of the Sunday talk shows). The Turning Point.

I can't help it but I am getting scared. Do you remember what happened the last time our current President's poll numbers got this low? As I recall planes flew into buildings! So keep one eye to the sky. All hell broke loose over the weekend as far as the Joe Wilson affair goes. Kos has a good synopsis here, Plame Affair Finally Gets Legs. Cheney can't stop. Everyone in the Administration has admitted no link between 9/11 and Saddam but Cheney is still won't give it a rest, Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney. I guess he's been telling the same lie for so long that he can't stop now.

So where did all the pre-war insider intelligence come from? Well check this out, Agency Belittles Information Given by Iraq Defectors. Here is an excerpt:
In addition, several Iraqi defectors introduced to American intelligence agents by the exile organization and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, invented or exaggerated their credentials as people with direct knowledge of the Iraqi government and its suspected unconventional weapons program, the officials said.
Now do you believe the people in the administration are stupid or liars? Those are the only two options. I choose liars.

It also appears that the Diebold jig is up, Spotlight Returns to Diebold Voting Machines. What in the hell is going on? Why is all of this coming out a one time. I have not been able to figure this out yet. I'd like to think good thoughts. That my fellow Americans are starting to wake up. I hope that is the case. Remember it can all be turned around with life threatening fear. Which can only be appropriately ramped up by mass death. That might be a little harsh, I'm sorry, but it needed to be said.

A good Newsweek article, The Unbuilding of Iraq.

Friday, September 26, 2003
The line is getting very blurry. Where does the government end and business take over? Why do I bring this up well the Vice President seems to be having a problem, Senator: Report undermines Cheney, Halliburton link. Then I see this, New Bridge Strategies. Just in case you were wondering what former government officials do when they leave. Be sure and check out the Bio link. This is not just a problem with the Republicans the Democrats do it too. This is wrong! Work two years for FEMA and then go into business for yourself with all your connections inside the government and use that influence to make your fortune.

Powell Tries to Explain 2001 Remarks on Iraq. Let me help. He didn't have anything in February of 2001 but 9/11 changed everything even though, as the President said last week, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Maybe this will at least start the debate in Congress, Kucinich Introduces Bill To Repeal Sections Of USA PATRIOT Act. The Austin City Council joins in, Criticism of Patriot measure endorsed.

Thursday, September 25, 2003
Close your eyes and take yourself back to the year 2000. If you remember there was a Presidential, ahem, election that year. Along with that came debates. I came across this recently and it seems relevant to our current situation:
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
It's a good thing we hold politicians to what they say in this country, isn't it? For most of us this is just another round of lies from this administration. But for the families of the military it is a tragedy. Here is one mothers feelings about her deceased son from the previous link:
"My son, Sgt. Evan Ashcraft, was killed July 24, 2003 at 2:30 in the morning on a lonely road near Mosul, Iraq. He was 24 years old. He died alone, no family nearby, no one to hold his hand or pray over him as he left this world.

Evan was a gifted student, musician and athlete. He started college courses in mathematics and computer science when he was 13 years old. He played classical piano. He had hopes and dreams. He and his soul mate, Ashley, had big plans. Evan planned to get his college degree after he left the Army. Evan and Ashley had been married 3 years. Evan was one of the best and the brightest. He was a leader, his team loved him and he them.

The young men and women who are dying in Iraq are our future generation of leaders. They are the future of America. They represent the best that America has to offer. Those who survive Iraq will undoubtedly face years of anguish over what they have witnessed in this immoral war, all in the name of oil. In the meantime we, the American public, sit by, mute, as we watch our young die. We must halt this unconscionable action in Iraq immediately and bring our young people home.

It's too late for my son, but it's not too late for the many tens of thousands still in Iraq. Bring them home now!"

Jane Bright
Mother of Sgt. Evan Ashcraft, Deceased
You just have to feel for the families of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people are the ones sacrificing for this war. I'm not exactly sure what can be done to help but maybe leaning on our elected officials would help. Many people say that it's to late to worry about why we are there and since we are there we cannot leave until our mission, whatever it is this week, is finished. Some like Tom Friedman feel that if we fail in Iraq it will be the end of us. To me that is just what people said about Vietnam if we lose there and as you can tell we survived. I believe it takes a bigger person, in this case country, to admit they made a mistake then it does to continue with a failed policy. I think giving way to the UN and accepting the fact that no single nation can rebuild Iraq is essential. That this must be and international project must not only be realized but put into action. The sad part is I can't see this administration making that change until more military families are forced to suffer.

Draft Report Said to Cite No Success in Iraq Arms Hunt.


Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Your President gave a speech at the UN yesterday. Did you see it? Here is a little taste:

Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: between those who seek order, and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change, and those who adopt the methods of gangsters.

Without a hint of irony, US President George Bush
Address to the United Nations
September 23, 2003
If not here is a critique, Bush to World: Drop Dead! It's a good thing he didn't go there looking for help or something. Apparently better speeches were given by Kofi Annan, Annan Trounces Bush at UN and Chirac. It is playing bad in America but how did we do around the world you ask? Here are a couple of examples, Arabs slam Bush UN speech and What the papers say . I don't understand why he went to the UN to make a speech like this in the first place. Just to say, see I told you so we were right to go into Iraq, now give us what we want?

It appears the President is in a cocoon. I have read a couple of things in the last few days about how he doesn't read the papers, he just gets briefed by his staff. Here is a link describing it: Sorry it's from right wing NewsMax, Why Bush Doesn't Read the Papers. I particularly like this excerpt:
"I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news," he told Hume. "And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world."
Jesus, he's like a monkey in a cage. All he gets to eat is what they throw in his cage. Apparently he doesn't think the people telling him what's happening color the news with their opinions. Sorry, I'm giving him credit for thinking. Maybe that explains why he can get up there and still talk about Saddam having WMD and links to Al Qaeda. When Condi or Andy or whoever gives him his daily news never shows him what the papers are writing about these subjects then how would he know?

So it looks like our country and the "coalition of the willing" are left to go it alone in Iraq.

Apparently the Republicans don't like it when Bush gets criticism, Republicans Strike Back After Criticism of Bush's Iraq Policy. Molly Ivins has a word or two to say about this as well, Fear and loathing in America.

I love the comparison to a robot in this one, Administration stuck in an infinite loop.

Two links from More on touchy Republicans, Touchy, touchy, touchy. This one from what I believe is one of the most important issue facing our country. I think this shows what a problem this is, Diebold feels the heat. Sends out attack lawyers.

This is funny, A Thousand Points of Plan. It illustrates a classic political ploy, the (insert # here) point plan to fix a problem. Here is an excerpt from a section at the bottom, those poor workers:
BAD EXAMPLE: When Bush was stumping for his "jobs and growth" tax cut proposal in April, he went to Timken Co., a maker of steel bearings in Canton, Ohio. "The greatest strength of the American economy is found right here," Bush said then, predicting the tax cut would bring "more money for investment, more money for growth, and more money for jobs."

A month later, Bush signed a $350 billion tax cut, less than he wanted but still what he called "a bold package." And Timken? The company announced last week that it is cutting 900 jobs and lowering its earnings forecasts.

Tuesday, September 23, 2003
I'm not exactly sure how to start this today. We need to wade into the sludge that is politics.

As most of you know--because you have been paying attention, right?--Wesley Clark announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for President last week. It has changed the dynamics of the nomination immensely. Before this announcement, Howard Dean was the front runner, and now Clark appears to be the odds-on favorite. ...if you believe the polls.

First of all, let's get this straight right away: none of the front runners for the nomination (Clark, Dean, Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt) are liberals. The only liberals running for the nomination are Kucinich and Mosley-Braun. Second, Dean is the only one of the front runners who said before the war that he would not have voted for the resolution giving Bush carte blanche. By comparison, Clark in the last few days has been all over the map on whether he was for or against the war. Here is a Salon interview with Clark from March 23, 2003. This excerpt alone should count as two strikes:
Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

[Deputy Secretary of Defense] Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. [Deputy National Security Advisor] Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. [Under Secretary of Defense for Policy] Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with [Pentagon advisor] Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

This guy is running for the Democratic nomination? He should be in the running to take Cheney's place under Bush! (Aside: Be on the lookout for stories about a rift between Cheney and Bush.) It is still early, but I believe that Clark has been sent by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) to, in their opinion, save the party from Howard Dean. Dean has been painted as a liberal who cannot beat Bush--not by the Republicans but by the Republican wing of the Democratic party, aka the DLC.

This has so many angles to it:

Clark really wanted to be a Republican, but Rove wouldn't return his calls.

He's what they call a stalking horse for Hillary--a sham candidate put forward to conceal the candidacy of another or to divide the opposition. Clintons Anoint Clark.

So, what is going on? It looks like some good ol' politikin', that's what. It seems like the DLC wing of the party was just fine with Dean (or any of the other nine) getting the nomination as long as Bush looked unbeatable. Then Iraq went bad, the economy stayed poor and Bush's numbers started to slide. Now, Bush looks beatable and the DLC does not want a Democratic president that is not beholden to them. So send in the general. Whether he is a stalking horse for Hillary or really wanted to be a Republican, I do not know. This could be a vast right-wing conspiracy (VRWC) rearing its ugly head again because, as we all know, that nothing fires up the Republican base like a Clinton.

One more thing about all of this is the problems it could cause within the party. Since 2000, there has been much debate about its direction. Some still blame Nader (I don't). Others do not want to vote for another Republicrat (like Clinton and Gore). Some believe that no matter what the main goal is they have to get rid of Bush, hence this, The Pledge. I have not made up my mind yet who I will vote for. What I have read about Wesley Clark in the last week has not endeared me to him. Continue to pay attention to this and always remember what FDR said (above).

More sludge, different topic. If you live in Texas you know that redistricting has been in the news for the last 4-5 months. The Democrats have left the state a few times and have been worked over by the Republicans. Now everyone is back in Austin, wasting more taxpayer dollars, and those silly Democrats are waiting to see what will happen now that the Republicans can't agree on a map. What were the Repugs doing the whole time the Democrats were away? wasting the tax payers money? I would have assumed with all the time they had, they could have had this all worked out already. That goes back to my main point on this all along: this happened because of a fundamental lack of leadership among the leaders of the Texas Republican Party, mainly the Governor.

Winning the hearts and minds, U.S. Strike in Iraq reportedly Kills 3.

Oh yeah, Bush spoke at the UN today. This is hilarious and sad at the same time: Bush begs at "irrelevant" UN.

This from Australia: Journo claims proof of WMD lies.

Monday, September 22, 2003
Are you aware of the problem with the media in the US? If not, I would like to recommend a very good book on the subject: Into The Buzzsaw. It basically tells how true investigative reporting no longer exists in our country's media. A good example is this: do you think NBC--or MSNBC or CNBC for that matter-- would ever expose any misdeeds of its owner, General Electric? Do you think you will ever see Tom Brokaw doing a story on this anytime soon?

Heard of these? Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003?

So why don't we hear about these very crucial stories? This goes to the heart of the reason why we are in Iraq. Look at story number one on the Project Censored list. I believe that if most people understood that the war in Iraq was nothing more than the beginning of a grand plan, it never would have happened. So whose fault is it that most people don't know? Each individual definitely has a responsibility. That being said, isn't it the job of the press in the United States to make sure these stories get told? So, if it is their job, why have the stories not been told? The answer to that question is the reverse of the answer to the question about why are we in Iraq. The answer to the question why are we in Iraq is found in who profits from the American occupation. The answer to why these stories are not being told is found in who would be hurt by them. Interestingly, it's the same answer. The major corporations which own and bankroll the media (through advertising money) have the most to lose from these stories. I think that says quite a bit right there.

*Just a personal note, the one story I did not see on the Project Censored list and would have liked to was the Diebold voting machine story. *

Maybe a little good news on this subject: Bush's Tame US Media May Yet Have Teeth.

Looks like we have a good old fashioned war of words: Bush calls Kennedy's Iraq criticism `uncivil'. Some of the quotes from your President in this article are humorous.

Check this out: Economic Overhaul for Iraq.

And so it goes, 3 G.I.'s Killed West of Baghdad; Top Iraqi in Critical Condition.

Friday, September 19, 2003
I was thinking last night. Usually when I say this to my wife she says, "Uh oh"! I was thinking about how we got from going after the "supposed" people who flew the planes on 9/11 to attacking everyone around the world that supposedly has WMD, except for Israel of course. Why when terrorists use conventional means on 9/11? I believe that all of the Al Qaeda attacks have been conventional. I don't believe up to that point they had ever used chemical or biological weapons. How was the hysteria of 9/11 changed to WMD and Iraq. It was the anthrax attacks.

By reading over the information and links in the above story it becomes apparent that the anthrax used in the attacks was from a domestic lab. It also tells of how in the early stages of the reporting the connection was made that Iraq is one of the only states other than the United States that produced anthrax. Therefore, we have to rid Iraq of WMD. Now the seed was planted, once the connection was made and the hysteria created. It didn't matter that the investigation eventually led to a domestic source and completely eliminated Iraq as the source. When was the last time you heard anything about this. They still have not found who did this!

What the attacks did was put WMD in everyone's mind. Once there the connection is made between Iraq and WMD and voila a justification for war. That's how I believe the transformation from Al Qaeda to Iraq was accomplished. A conspiracy theory? Once again I just have some questions I want answered.

Teddy speaks, Kennedy Says Iraq War Case a 'Fraud'.

Think about this. A scathing article on the fraud in the United States electronic voting systems. This must have been printed in The New York Times, The Washinton Post, The LA Times, right? No, this is from the Moscow Times! Global Eye -- Vanishing Act.

More on our watchdog press, Bush 9/11 Admission Gets Little Play.

This is a very good article, The Striking Similarities Between Vietnam and Iraq: Can You Say Quagmire?

Thursday, September 18, 2003
Well, well, well, I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard it with my own ears:
Q Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. Yet, on Meet the Press, Sunday, the Vice President said Iraq was a geographic base for the terrorists and he also said, I don't know, or we don't know, when asked if there was any involvement. Your critics say that this is some effort -- deliberate effort to blur the line and confuse people. How would you answer that?

THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.
I wonder if the 69% were listening. This goes to the heart of why we are in Iraq. There is Wolfowitz's bureaucratic reasons for the decision to go with WMD's as the main excuse. How this works is they make a statement, "Iraq has WMD's", and it gets spread around the media for a few weeks like it is gospel. It is accepted as fact. Then a few months later it is exposed as a lie, "Iraq has no WMD's", and it is put on back pages and not brought up on most TV/radio shows. (Found this after posting, White House's Cynical Iraq Ploy: 'Misspeak' First, 'Correct' It Later).

So he had no WMD's to give to Al Qaeda. He was not responsible for 9/11. Then why did we invade Iraq? Oh yeah, that's right for humanitarian reasons, Saddam was a bad guy. If that isn't the biggest bunch of crap I don't know what is. I did a bad thing last night and watched "Hardball". John McCain was on. (The back-and-forth will be from memory, I will post the transcript as soon as I can find it). Here is the transcript: [LINK] Start reading from, MATTHEWS: You still believe... He asked McCain about WMD being the main reason for going into Iraq. McCain answered that it was a reason not the main reason. Then Matthews asked him what the main reason was and he said that Saddam was a brutal dictator. This is a guy who was a POW in Vietnam and he is now lying for this administration the same way so many did about Vietnam. I have a hard time understanding why someone who went through what he did would do the same thing himself.

Let's recap real quick. We started a war with a country that was not a threat. Now because of our invasion and occupation our soldiers will continue dying there for some time. We also have to send an additional $87 billion this year to stay there. Meanwhile, in the "Homeland" more job cuts, here, here and here. The budget outlook gets worse, GAO grim on deficit outlook. The only way I see to change this is to make sure Bush does not get reelected.

A MUST READ A soldier tells us how it is, Paths of Glory Lead to a Soldier's Doubt.

Joe Wilson on our current state, Seeking Honesty in U.S. Policy.

This looks interesting, Bush lied to Congress. The proof.

Looks like a bad day in Iraq so far. Two to choose from: Two soldiers wounded in convoy attack west of Baghdad and U.S. Troops Ambushed in Central Iraq Town. Check the new link Iraq Coalition Casualty Count for latest information.

Check this out (especially those that didn't vote), Senate OKs Bush's Nuclear Ambitions.

Here is a link to a website for a new book on Bush, "The Lies of George W. Bush, Mastering the Politics of Deception" by David Corn.

Wednesday, September 17, 2003
When will it ever end. So let me see if I have this right? Our country is mislead to war. We conquer a country and we find out that the reasons for war were all, to use the British term, "sexed up". But now that we are there and we just can't leave (especially when all that oil is still there). So we have to accept the fact that our government did this. Even though every American, myself included, is responsible for this. We allowed this to happen! But we still have a chance to change this.

We are now looking at deficits as far as the eye can see. Money for education, health care, roads, etc., is all gone. Remember Al Gore's "lock box"? All for what. So we can feel safer right. Well do you feel safer since we invaded Iraq? Didn't think so. Do whatever you can to make these people go away. Tell friends, family, neighbors, enemies, anyone who votes the truth about the lies. Help them to understand that the future of this country is at stake!

A great roundup of the now indefinitely delayed WMD report, Britain, US postpone WMD report for lack of evidence.

Remember, CNN is the liberal station! Amanpour: CNN Practiced Self-Censorship.

They don't even care what the truth is anymore. Transcript of Cheney on "Meet The Press". If you want a breakdown of the appearance, go here.

Some good news, New rules for media rejected by Senate.

Democrats finally bring some heat, House Democrats Urge Bush to Shake Up Staff on Iraq Policy.

More on Cheney, a different subject, Democrats question Cheney's Halliburton payments.

Sorry for no posting the last few days. I had a death in the family. I will post this afternoon for sure.

Thursday, September 11, 2003
I caught a glimpse of a little 9/11-- I don't know what to call it-- a look back. Now when I think about it and look back I still have to tell myself again that "MY" government at the least allowed this to happen. So when I hear about a new bin Laden tape it makes me wonder why now and who put this out. My wife always tells me that if I had watched the X-Files I would be much worse. I don't want to believe that my government allowed a CIA trained terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) to perform these acts so they could bring on unending war but I can't help it. The more I read and learn about what we have done to other countries [LINK] the more I know that this was not just 19 guys who got on planes with box cutters and flew these planes after learning at flight schools in Florida. (See the FDR quote above). Once I looked into PNAC, Peak Oil, the history of the Bush family and began to understand that 9/11 was needed to set us on our current course it urged me to go make sense of this. (If you want some quick insight into where 9/11 fits into history read this book, Dreaming War, by Gore Vidal).

I know I write about this topic quite a bit but I feel this is the "Big Lie" that most Americans have accepted. It is hard not to accept because it is not refuted in anyway by the mainstream media. The "Big Lie" explains why there has been no serious questioning of our government on why 9/11 happened. One would think that the worst terrorist attack ever carried out on American soil would be investigated more intensely than the space shuttle blowing up. If you believe the current explanation I am happy for you, now go back to sleep. If not, do a Google search on "9/11 stand down", "Bush knew", or anything else that comes to mind. (WARNING: Once you start you may not be able to stop.)

I cannot stomach the incessant, "Are we safer than we were two years ago" and "Could this happen again", in light of what I believe. Those questions cannot be correctly answered until we know why 9/11 happened. Therefore until that happens the answer to those two questions are, no and more that likely.

I think this person is reading my mind, WHY DON'T WE HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE 9/11 QUESTIONS?

A MUST READ Statement on the Second Anniversary of 9/11, from September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows.

The Buzzflash 9/11 Perspectives Page.

Wednesday, September 10, 2003
I have come to realize that we were lied into this war almost exactly the same way we were lied into Vietnam. It would be an easy victory because of our overwhelming military power. It's kind of like being teased dowm to the car lot with the too-good-to-be-true deal only to find out when you get there that they don't have that model on the lot. Trust me, on this car lot there is no deal like that. All the options are bad. As with Vietnam the question now becomes how much money, how many lives, years and sorrow is this worth?

Remember this has been transformed from a war against a brutal, WMD possessing tyrant to the "central front" in the war on terror. I still believe that the plan is going well as far as this administration is concerned. I don't think they intended to leave quickly from the outset. If you're not familiar with the subject of Peak Oil it sheds some light on the need for Iraqi oil and the pipeline in Afghanistan. I know, I know, I know, this had nothing to do with oil. Rumsfeld even said so himself, "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion." [LINK] That whole link is excelent reading. Why the comment about religion? Anyway, If not for oil there would have been no Saddam and if not for Saddam we would not be in this mess to begin with. So for them to say oil has no bearing on this is another....wait for it...LIE.

It got bloody again yesterday:
Child Killed, Scores Wounded by Iraq Suicide Bomb.
US soldier killed in attack on tanker convoy. 14 US soldiers wounded as new wave of attacks hit troops after 2-day spell.

A great NY Times editorial, Presidential Character.

Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Our President talked on Sunday night about sacrifice. Whose I'm not quite sure. From where I sit I cannot see very much that he is sacrificing. I believe most Americans will be sacrificing quite a bit. I think it is pretty ludicrous the way things have changed since the war started and nobody is being held accountable. We were told things about Saddam and Iraq that were untrue! We were told of an imminent threat. We were told of WMD's. We were told of an Al Quaeda connection. We were definitely led to believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11. We were also told that our troops would be welcomed as liberators, that the cost would be minimal (in money and lives) and that we would be out quickly. How many of those assertions have come to be true. If you made that many wrong calculations in your line of work would you still have a job? Why hasn't anyone been fired over this? Remember the adults are back in charge.

Now we are told it is the central front in the war on terror. A central front we created. Some call it the "flypaper thesis" as referred to in this article, Terrorism and Iraq: The Link Is Real Now. Here is an excerpt:
The theory is the "flypaper" thesis. It is presented perhaps most blatantly by Ralph Peters in the New York Post. The fact that Iraq has become a "magnet" for terrorists is not a problem, Peters avers. "On the contrary. We've taken the War Against Terror to our enemies. It's far better to draw the terrorists out of their holes in the Middle East, where we don't have to read them their rights, than to wait for them to show up in Manhattan again. "In Iraq, we can just kill the bastards. And we're doing it with gusto."
I don't remember anything about this or any other pest control products being mentioned before the war. Let me see, it would have gone something like this: Saddam Hussein is a brutal tyrant and he must be removed not because he is a threat but so we can use Iraq as the central front in the war on terror. That makes sense to me.

Paul Krugman, Other People's Sacrifice.

Will Press Roll Over Again on New WMD Report? A link to the AP story mentioned in this article, Point by Point, a Look Back at a 'thick' File, a Fateful Six Months Later The Most Detailed U.S. Case for Invading Iraq Was Laid.

This person is not happy. One persons take on our current leaders. There area few cuss words so look out if you are easily offended.

Monday, September 08, 2003
Last night as I listened to my President speak I couldn't help but feel sorry for the man. He has a job that he no longer wants. When I was growing up President of the United States (POTUS) seemed like a pretty cool job. Nothing close to playing baseball for a living but pretty cool just the same. But looking at Dubya last night he looked like a deer in the headlights and a person who was someplace he no longer wanted to be. The one sinister thing about the whole speech was the only time he seemed to be enjoying himself is when he spoke of all the people he has killed. It is mind boggling how all the justifications for this war have changed. We went from Iraq posing an imminent threat to the American people to exporting Democracy to the Middle East. We went from Iraq being no terrorist threat to now being the "central front" in the war on terror.

Juan Cole , has the best breakdowm of the speech last night.

Reading this, Abandon All Hope, will not make you feel much better.

When most of our brethren believe false truths how do the rest of us change those beliefs? William Rivers Pitt has something to say about that in his editorial today, I Believe, one person at a time.

I know I harp on the 9/11 lies quite a bit. To show you my frustration look at this page from Take Back The Media. If you want to know why other countries laugh at us it is because "BIG" stories like this make headlines all over the world and they don't even make page A17 here.

Friday, September 05, 2003
Here is the phrase for today that is being used to describe this (mis)administrations policy shift in Iraq, "midcourse correction". The first thing wrong with this word is, mid means half-way and I don't think we are close to that yet. In my mind midcourse correction means: all the predictions we made before the war are wrong, in other words a CF. This will help explain it, Bush Foreign Policy and Harsh Reality. Wolfie has a few words on the subject, Wolfowitz: Bombing changed U.N. mood, see how many lies you can count.

Important people, Ex-Envoy Criticizes Bush's Postwar Policy, are starting to speak out.

The lies, White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says, continue to come out.

Good news on the FCC front, U.S. Court Blocks Plan to Ease Rule on Media Owners.

This is a great read. The schemers who turned 9/11 into a foreign policy disaster. I think this excerpt says it all:
Too many of us allowed our fears of another 9/11-style attack cloud our judgment. Too many of us allowed our leaders to stampede us into an unnecessary war. Too many of us allowed them to lie with impunity about the need for an immediate, unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq. Too many of us allowed the silencing of those who disagreed with the Bush administration's plans. And too many of us didn't realize how easily our democracy could be corrupted by a small group of scheming men.
A foreign perspective, Global Eye -- Strange Attractors.

Thursday, September 04, 2003
Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected.

Great article with links from dailykos on the new UN push "Freedom Fries" will haunt administration.

Tuesday, September 02, 2003
Why is it that Americans have such a problem admitting their mistakes? It's like Fonzie from "Happy Days". Remember when he would try to apologize and say he was wrong and could only get out, "I was Wrrrrr...." I think it is the image of being number one and being on the winning side is all that counts. No one remembers who came in second, right? When I talk of being able to admit a mistake I am not talking about this (mis)administration, because we know they will never admit a mistake. I am talking about the American people being able to admit they made a mistake in trusting this (mis)administration. As I read these two articles today: Facing the truth about Iraq and Bush Was All Too Willing to Use Emigrés' Lies, they made me wonder if anyone is paying attention. Now that it has become obvious that we were lied into this war has anyone noticed. There was a CBS news poll released last week that says, "61% think the Administration has usually told the truth but has hidden some things." I have always thought it interesting the way they ask poll questions. Think about that statement! "Usually" told the truth, "has hidden some things." To me that statement means they tell the truth except for when they lie.

Not only do we want a winner, we also do not want to admit we were scammed. This is the reason, I believe, that most Americans still have not come around. If what that poll says is correct, a majority of Americans believe some things have been hidden. But can they actually admit that they were duped and told lies to get them to acquiesce to war? I don't think most who trusted Bush can admit this to themselves yet. The question now is what has to happen to get them to admit it. Never forget the power of the "The Big Lie".

This story exposes the untold story of the wounded in Iraq. Number of Wounded in Action on Rise.

This is an excerpt from a post on This site has some really intersting stuff on Iraq and the Middle East from their point of view.
*The excellent Australian program AM reports a secret United Nations document that details a rise in the number and sophistication of attacks on US troops in the Sunni Arab triangle. Former military intelligence official Pat Lang reacted in an AM interview: "Well if you read down through the body of the rest of that report, they list all these incidents. And if you brought them out on a map, and I believe there were actually a couple of diagrams in that report that showed the distribution, you've got these attacks all over the area from just south of Baghdad all the way up to Mosul and pretty far over in the west beyond Fallujah – this is you know, about a third of the country, that's a bad thing, you know. I mean, it shows that this is not going away at all, in fact it's getting worse. When American authorities say they don't want any more troops there, that gives me pause because you need to saturate the country with troops in order to put a stop to this."

The same report says a soldier at the al-Rasheed Hotel sent them an email that is scathing about the civilian Bremer administration. He said that the civil administrators are chasing skirts and "hooking up with nice-looking gals from US and Iraq," and that they worry about "running out of Coke and Diet Coke to go with their steak and crab leg dinner." Meanwhile, the soldiers "look like hobo's and live like pigs". AM paraphrases, "Those within the Mr Bremer's authority have created a sterile ivory castle that distorts their view of the country." The message signs off, "there's no Iraqi representation at the levels making decisions on Iraq's future. The message we are sending is pretty confusing to the Iraqis. Their provisional government even has to come to Saddam's old palace for meetings. Go figure." See this link
It's good to see that the "Ugly American" is still holding his own.

This is a good summation, with explanations, on the lies we have been told about 9/11. September 11th And The Bush Administration.


Powered by Blogger