Neo-cons provide al-Quaeda top secret software

Imagine if prominent U.S. neo-conservatives and Israel had ties dating back some 30 years. And what if, thanks to those ties, Israel, managed to insert a "trap door" into some sophisticated high tech military software so that they could spy on us? But what if al-Qaeda managed to acquire the software on the black market in the late 1990s, and then used it to facilitate the group's global banking and money-laundering schemes?



No, it's not the newest Tom Clancy novel. According to sources, Pentagon investigators believe that's exactly what happened and that al-Qaeda used the software to spy on various U.S. agencies that could have detected or foiled the Sep. 11, 2001 attack.



Interpress (North America): Spy Probe Scans Neo-Con Israel Ties

Neo-cons provide al-Quaeda top secret software

Imagine if prominent U.S. neo-conservatives and Israel had ties dating back some 30 years. And what if, thanks to those ties, Israel, managed to insert a "trap door" into some sophisticated high tech military software so that they could spy on us? But what if al-Qaeda managed to acquire the software on the black market in the late 1990s, and then used it to facilitate the group's global banking and money-laundering schemes?



No, it's not the newest Tom Clancy novel. According to sources, Pentagon investigators believe that's exactly what happened and that al-Qaeda used the software to spy on various U.S. agencies that could have detected or foiled the Sep. 11, 2001 attack.



Interpress (North America): Spy Probe Scans Neo-Con Israel Ties

A wartime president would give us some answers

The planning committee for the Republican convention must have missed the memo. Somebody forgot to tell them that the September 11 Commission found no evidence of a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that, in short, there was no justification for the U.S. to invade that country. That's the only explanation. That must be why were treated to hours of emotional programming juxtaposing September 11 and the proud duty that our soldiers are doing in Iraq fighting the on-going war on terror.



Clearly enough, the Republican party wants us to once again suspend our disbelief and rally round George W. Bush as a "wartime president" (and politely ignore Bush's burbling this week that the real problem is that the invasion of Iraq was a "catastrophic success," or his ominously Orwellian warning that "we can never win the war on terror" but must fight on anyway).



Well okay then. If George W. Bush wants to be a wartime president, he owes us a few things, and we ought to be listening for them when he accepts the nomination to be wartime president Thursday.

A wartime president has a responsibility to explain how his war is going and to articulate a clear strategy that he will pursue if he wins a second term.



A wartime president must explain why his war, which he told us was meant to contain terrorism has instead created more terrorism.



A wartime president ought to explain why most of the new terrorism is in Iraq itself, which was supposed to be the beneficiary of our gift of freedom and our platform for combating terrorism but instead has become a magnet for terrorism.



A wartime president owes us a clear explanation of why, after nearly 1,000 Americans have been killed and thousands wounded, Taliban-like Sunni fundamentalists now control western Iraq and why, when our Iraqis allies try to work with us to fight off these insurgents, they are killed by their own fellow citizens.

At this point we don't know Bush's war plans because he hasn't told us. On Thursday he can provide some answers, or he can stand before the afterimages of the Twin Towers, insist that we are safer, and beg us to trust him.



Washington Post: For Openers, Recalling The Past to Win the Present

A wartime president would give us some answers

The planning committee for the Republican convention must have missed the memo. Somebody forgot to tell them that the September 11 Commission found no evidence of a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that, in short, there was no justification for the U.S. to invade that country. That's the only explanation. That must be why were treated to hours of emotional programming juxtaposing September 11 and the proud duty that our soldiers are doing in Iraq fighting the on-going war on terror.



Clearly enough, the Republican party wants us to once again suspend our disbelief and rally round George W. Bush as a "wartime president" (and politely ignore Bush's burbling this week that the real problem is that the invasion of Iraq was a "catastrophic success," or his ominously Orwellian warning that "we can never win the war on terror" but must fight on anyway).



Well okay then. If George W. Bush wants to be a wartime president, he owes us a few things, and we ought to be listening for them when he accepts the nomination to be wartime president Thursday.

A wartime president has a responsibility to explain how his war is going and to articulate a clear strategy that he will pursue if he wins a second term.



A wartime president must explain why his war, which he told us was meant to contain terrorism has instead created more terrorism.



A wartime president ought to explain why most of the new terrorism is in Iraq itself, which was supposed to be the beneficiary of our gift of freedom and our platform for combating terrorism but instead has become a magnet for terrorism.



A wartime president owes us a clear explanation of why, after nearly 1,000 Americans have been killed and thousands wounded, Taliban-like Sunni fundamentalists now control western Iraq and why, when our Iraqis allies try to work with us to fight off these insurgents, they are killed by their own fellow citizens.

At this point we don't know Bush's war plans because he hasn't told us. On Thursday he can provide some answers, or he can stand before the afterimages of the Twin Towers, insist that we are safer, and beg us to trust him.



Washington Post: For Openers, Recalling The Past to Win the Present

"No, you're anti-American!"

Aside from keeping tabs on the head count for yesterday's demonstrations (Fox: "tens of thousands;" New York (it's their city after all) Times: "as many as half a million"), there was the frightening subtext: if you disagree with George W. Bush, you must be anti-American.



"I left God's country," said Leon Mosley of Waterloo, Iowa, co-chairman of his state party. "They could use a bunch of people from Iowa to come here to show New Yorkers what life is all about, what being patriotic is all about, and what country is all about. I'm as confident about Bush being re-elected as I am that eggs are going to be in New York tomorrow morning.''



It's hard to tell what eggs in New York have to do with it, but here's Bill Clinton making a bit more sense yesterday morning:



"This president also campaigned on being a uniter, not a divider. For goodness sakes, that was the greatest bait and switch! It's especially painful for many of us because, after 9/11, we united behind our president. I thought that was the appropriate thing to do. But instead of using that unity, the president has gone far to the right and has appealed to the most right-wing elements of his constituents."



New York Times: Upstaging Before the Show

"No, you're anti-American!"

Aside from keeping tabs on the head count for yesterday's demonstrations (Fox: "tens of thousands;" New York (it's their city after all) Times: "as many as half a million"), there was the frightening subtext: if you disagree with George W. Bush, you must be anti-American.



"I left God's country," said Leon Mosley of Waterloo, Iowa, co-chairman of his state party. "They could use a bunch of people from Iowa to come here to show New Yorkers what life is all about, what being patriotic is all about, and what country is all about. I'm as confident about Bush being re-elected as I am that eggs are going to be in New York tomorrow morning.''



It's hard to tell what eggs in New York have to do with it, but here's Bill Clinton making a bit more sense yesterday morning:



"This president also campaigned on being a uniter, not a divider. For goodness sakes, that was the greatest bait and switch! It's especially painful for many of us because, after 9/11, we united behind our president. I thought that was the appropriate thing to do. But instead of using that unity, the president has gone far to the right and has appealed to the most right-wing elements of his constituents."



New York Times: Upstaging Before the Show

Bush surrenders! "War is peace"

George W. Bush has acknowledged that he does not think the war on terror can be won. "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool are - less acceptable in parts of the world."



Kind of reminds you of the slogan of the Ministry of Truth, a branch of the totalitarian government in post-war London in George Orwell's 1984:



"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."



IC (Wales): Bush: 'War on terror cannot be won'

Bush surrenders! "War is peace"

George W. Bush has acknowledged that he does not think the war on terror can be won. "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool are - less acceptable in parts of the world."



Kind of reminds you of the slogan of the Ministry of Truth, a branch of the totalitarian government in post-war London in George Orwell's 1984:



"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."



IC (Wales): Bush: 'War on terror cannot be won'

The party of Nixon

As you watch the Republican convention next week, remember this: these are the same folks who, in 1968, enthusiastically chose Richard Nixon rather than Ronald Reagan. As you watch the lavish eulogies of Ronald Reagan implying that George W. Bush is from the same ideological background, recall that at the moment in time when this party had a straight up choice between Richard Nixon and the relatively benign Ronald Reagan they gleefully threw Reagan overboard and enthusiastically nominated Richard Nixon instead.



Of course you won't see that in prime time. Instead you'll see a line-up of safe and normal looking "conservatives" (against the backdrop of the predicted massive street demonstrations) with nary a mention of the Richard Nixon, who is much more representative of the character of the Bush administration.



But don't be fooled! Read the Republican platform. And if for any reason, you're tempted to vote G.O.P. ticket, know that your vote says that you support these extremist positions:

you believe that the U.S. has the absolute right to launch a preemptive invasion of any nation that bugs us because it's the best way to ensure world peace;



you think the U.S. constitution needs to be amended right away to prohibit both abortions and same sex marriage and to require prayer in public schools;



you want absolutely everyone to be allowed to buy as many guns as they like because it's the "best way" to deter crime (just like the streets of Baghdad, I suppose) and you think that it's urgent that we expand and make permanent the PATRIOT Act (except that we should prevent the government from asking any questions about gun ownership of course);



naturally you oppose global warming, but you think the best solution is complete surrender to corporate interests "relying on markets and new technologies to improve energy efficiency" and, you also think we should start drilling for oil in Alaska, the Rocky Mountains, and anywhere else where we haven't yet;



you support charter schools and vouchers as a solution for failed "government schools" (that'd be your neighborhood public school) identified by No Child Left Behind testing (even though charter and private schools don't have to comply with NCLB);



you think we need to crack down on "junk lawsuits" which you expect is all it will take to bring health care costs into line but, for god's sake, you don't want to let anybody do any research on stem cells;



you don't worry a bit about the "unwelcome but manageable" Federal deficit and think we should make all of the tax cuts permanent right away;



you pledge unquestioning support for Israel (even though they've now been caught spying on us);



and, of course, you think we should "stay the course in Iraq" where you think the U.S. invasion has made it "a safer and freer place." (Although the G.O.P. platform grudgingly acknowledges the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction it asserts that Saddam Hussein had a "desire" to have them and that wanting to have them is plenty of justification for invading his country (there's no mention of the desires of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, or other countries know to share that desire), and that, in any case, "we will finish that task" and (despite the persistent news reports to the contrary) that Iraq is "becoming" an example of "reform" to the Middle East.)

Somewhere Richard Nixon is smiling. It took three decades, but the Republican Party has finally succeeded in vindicating him.



Washington Post: Republicans' Platform

The party of Nixon

As you watch the Republican convention next week, remember this: these are the same folks who, in 1968, enthusiastically chose Richard Nixon rather than Ronald Reagan. As you watch the lavish eulogies of Ronald Reagan implying that George W. Bush is from the same ideological background, recall that at the moment in time when this party had a straight up choice between Richard Nixon and the relatively benign Ronald Reagan they gleefully threw Reagan overboard and enthusiastically nominated Richard Nixon instead.



Of course you won't see that in prime time. Instead you'll see a line-up of safe and normal looking "conservatives" (against the backdrop of the predicted massive street demonstrations) with nary a mention of the Richard Nixon, who is much more representative of the character of the Bush administration.



But don't be fooled! Read the Republican platform. And if for any reason, you're tempted to vote G.O.P. ticket, know that your vote says that you support these extremist positions:

you believe that the U.S. has the absolute right to launch a preemptive invasion of any nation that bugs us because it's the best way to ensure world peace;



you think the U.S. constitution needs to be amended right away to prohibit both abortions and same sex marriage and to require prayer in public schools;



you want absolutely everyone to be allowed to buy as many guns as they like because it's the "best way" to deter crime (just like the streets of Baghdad, I suppose) and you think that it's urgent that we expand and make permanent the PATRIOT Act (except that we should prevent the government from asking any questions about gun ownership of course);



naturally you oppose global warming, but you think the best solution is complete surrender to corporate interests "relying on markets and new technologies to improve energy efficiency" and, you also think we should start drilling for oil in Alaska, the Rocky Mountains, and anywhere else where we haven't yet;



you support charter schools and vouchers as a solution for failed "government schools" (that'd be your neighborhood public school) identified by No Child Left Behind testing (even though charter and private schools don't have to comply with NCLB);



you think we need to crack down on "junk lawsuits" which you expect is all it will take to bring health care costs into line but, for god's sake, you don't want to let anybody do any research on stem cells;



you don't worry a bit about the "unwelcome but manageable" Federal deficit and think we should make all of the tax cuts permanent right away;



you pledge unquestioning support for Israel (even though they've now been caught spying on us);



and, of course, you think we should "stay the course in Iraq" where you think the U.S. invasion has made it "a safer and freer place." (Although the G.O.P. platform grudgingly acknowledges the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction it asserts that Saddam Hussein had a "desire" to have them and that wanting to have them is plenty of justification for invading his country (there's no mention of the desires of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, or other countries know to share that desire), and that, in any case, "we will finish that task" and (despite the persistent news reports to the contrary) that Iraq is "becoming" an example of "reform" to the Middle East.)

Somewhere Richard Nixon is smiling. It took three decades, but the Republican Party has finally succeeded in vindicating him.



Washington Post: Republicans' Platform

With 14,816 killed so far, George W. Bush admits "a miscalculation." And what did he mis-calculate? A "swift victory."

George W. Bush admits that he made a "miscalculation of what the conditions would be" in Iraq. So far that "miscalculation" has killed some 13,714 Iraqis, at least 131 "coalition" members", and, oh yes, 971 U.S. soldiers. (Actually, you probably better click on the bold links above to check for the most current numbers.)



But wait! There's more! The "miscalculation" Bush admitted to is not the one where he invaded a sovereign nation without reason or provocation. No, this "miscalculation" was the unintended by-product of a "swift victory" against Saddam Hussein, which allowed a lot of bad guys to get away instead of waiting around for us to kill them.



You see, the whole mess in Iraq is Hussein's fault for not putting up more of a fight. George W. Bush told me so.



By the way, the definition of a "delusion" is a "false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of psychosis." And what is psychosis? A mental disorder characterized by a loss of contact with reality causing deterioration of normal social functioning.



Given that, it's not at all surprising that the lead of the New York Times story below is that Bush says he believes John Kerry when it comes to Vietnam.



New York Times: Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam

With 14,816 killed so far, George W. Bush admits "a miscalculation." And what did he mis-calculate? A "swift victory."

George W. Bush admits that he made a "miscalculation of what the conditions would be" in Iraq. So far that "miscalculation" has killed some 13,714 Iraqis, at least 131 "coalition" members", and, oh yes, 971 U.S. soldiers. (Actually, you probably better click on the bold links above to check for the most current numbers.)



But wait! There's more! The "miscalculation" Bush admitted to is not the one where he invaded a sovereign nation without reason or provocation. No, this "miscalculation" was the unintended by-product of a "swift victory" against Saddam Hussein, which allowed a lot of bad guys to get away instead of waiting around for us to kill them.



You see, the whole mess in Iraq is Hussein's fault for not putting up more of a fight. George W. Bush told me so.



By the way, the definition of a "delusion" is a "false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of psychosis." And what is psychosis? A mental disorder characterized by a loss of contact with reality causing deterioration of normal social functioning.



Given that, it's not at all surprising that the lead of the New York Times story below is that Bush says he believes John Kerry when it comes to Vietnam.



New York Times: Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam

What are we doing?

A father who had just been told by the Marines that his son was killed in Iraq picked up a can of gasoline, broke into the Marines' van, and set it and himself ablaze.



Without even a hint of irony, one of the Marines said, "We have not seen this type of reaction. Every reaction is negative; it's the loss of a loved one. I don't think any of us are qualified to go into the depths of the mind and truly anticipate how somebody is going to react."



Do you suppose that Marine has ever stopped to ponder how any of families of the 13,695 Iraqis killed so far have reacted ?



Los Angeles Times: Distraught Father Torches Marine Van

What are we doing?

A father who had just been told by the Marines that his son was killed in Iraq picked up a can of gasoline, broke into the Marines' van, and set it and himself ablaze.



Without even a hint of irony, one of the Marines said, "We have not seen this type of reaction. Every reaction is negative; it's the loss of a loved one. I don't think any of us are qualified to go into the depths of the mind and truly anticipate how somebody is going to react."



Do you suppose that Marine has ever stopped to ponder how any of families of the 13,695 Iraqis killed so far have reacted ?



Los Angeles Times: Distraught Father Torches Marine Van

Republicans show their true colors

Next week at the Republican convention we'll be treated to a very moderate line-up: Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, and the like. But this week the G.O.P. is quietly shoring up their real positions.



Vote Republican this year and you're voting for a party that:



1) believes that abortion ought to be outlawed by constitutional amendment,

2) prayer should be required in public schools, and, of course, that

3) gay marriage ought to be outlawed.



And, just to make certain that everyone toes the line, they also say that "Republicans of good faith" cannot depart from these positions.



Truth is, despite Dick Cheney's fatherly defense of his lesbian daughter the other day, the religious right is still running the Republican party.



Washington Post: GOP Adds Anti-Gay Marriage Plank to Platform

Republicans show their true colors

Next week at the Republican convention we'll be treated to a very moderate line-up: Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, and the like. But this week the G.O.P. is quietly shoring up their real positions.



Vote Republican this year and you're voting for a party that:



1) believes that abortion ought to be outlawed by constitutional amendment,

2) prayer should be required in public schools, and, of course, that

3) gay marriage ought to be outlawed.



And, just to make certain that everyone toes the line, they also say that "Republicans of good faith" cannot depart from these positions.



Truth is, despite Dick Cheney's fatherly defense of his lesbian daughter the other day, the religious right is still running the Republican party.



Washington Post: GOP Adds Anti-Gay Marriage Plank to Platform

New York City Welcomes Peaceful Political Activists

Quick! Sign up as a "Peaceful Political Activist" and not only will you get a special button (Yes, the extremely lame logo on the website is the genuine article ... nice to see they decided to spend a few bucks on graphic design) you can also take advantage of special offers and get your very own Peaceful Political Activists Savings Card good for discounts across the city (All of them detailed on the web site, check back often as new merchants are signing up daily!).



Now it's not clear whether or not you actually have to be either peaceful or politically active. In fact you can print out the discount card on the web site without ever even going to New York City. However, it is interesting to note that New York City is having a "sales tax holiday" on clothing and footwear for seven days from August 31 through September 6. Must be another Republican tax cut to stimulate the economy.



NYC Visitor's Bureau: New York City Welcomes Peaceful Political Activists

New York City Welcomes Peaceful Political Activists

Quick! Sign up as a "Peaceful Political Activist" and not only will you get a special button (Yes, the extremely lame logo on the website is the genuine article ... nice to see they decided to spend a few bucks on graphic design) you can also take advantage of special offers and get your very own Peaceful Political Activists Savings Card good for discounts across the city (All of them detailed on the web site, check back often as new merchants are signing up daily!).



Now it's not clear whether or not you actually have to be either peaceful or politically active. In fact you can print out the discount card on the web site without ever even going to New York City. However, it is interesting to note that New York City is having a "sales tax holiday" on clothing and footwear for seven days from August 31 through September 6. Must be another Republican tax cut to stimulate the economy.



NYC Visitor's Bureau: New York City Welcomes Peaceful Political Activists

Terrorists hijack the Olympics!

"We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. Freedom is just a word for the media."



So said Adnan Hamad, coach of the Iraqi Olympic team in response to Bush campaign terrorists who hijacked the Olympics proclaiming that thanks to Bush alone, "Freedom is spreading through the world like a sunrise," and that"At this Olympics there will be two more free nations and two less terrorist regimes."



Want to bet that Coach Hamad won't be admitted to any Bush campaign rallies.



Guardian (London): Bush Games Hijack Leaves a Very Sour Taste

Terrorists hijack the Olympics!

"We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. Freedom is just a word for the media."



So said Adnan Hamad, coach of the Iraqi Olympic team in response to Bush campaign terrorists who hijacked the Olympics proclaiming that thanks to Bush alone, "Freedom is spreading through the world like a sunrise," and that"At this Olympics there will be two more free nations and two less terrorist regimes."



Want to bet that Coach Hamad won't be admitted to any Bush campaign rallies.



Guardian (London): Bush Games Hijack Leaves a Very Sour Taste

Maybe conservatives just cannot help themselves

It turns out there is scientific evidence that the term "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron. Preliminary research indicates that when viewing upsetting or violent images of human beings the brainwave activity of conservatives is very different from that of liberals. In short, conservatives are more likely to react with fear and liberals are more likely to react with empathy.



Actually, that explains quite a lot.



New York Times: The Political Brain

Maybe conservatives just cannot help themselves

It turns out there is scientific evidence that the term "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron. Preliminary research indicates that when viewing upsetting or violent images of human beings the brainwave activity of conservatives is very different from that of liberals. In short, conservatives are more likely to react with fear and liberals are more likely to react with empathy.



Actually, that explains quite a lot.



New York Times: The Political Brain

Attorney General John Ashcroft is caught lying about interrogations of U.S. citizens

First he denied that the FBI was interrogating anybody about their plans for the Republican convention. Then he said they were talking to only a few people. Yesterday, Attorney General John Ashcroft, said that Federal agents interrogated only protesters he believed were plotting to firebomb media vehicles at the Democratic convention.



Putting aside the matter of the initial denial concerning the Republican convention but the excuse now including the protection of the Democratic convention, there are other problems. It turns out that FBI agents have not been asking questions about firebombs or media trucks. In fact, Ashcroft hasn't produced anybody who's even heard about a plot to attack the media ... or plans for any other disruptive acts for that matter. According Gary Bald, assistant director of the FBI's counterterrorism division, the bureau does not have enough evidence to move against any group or person who might be plotting violent protests this month in New York.



And yet the interrogation of innocent Americans by agents of the Bush government continues.



Gee, I'd hate to think that the Attorney General was setting us up for a political crackdown if the Presidential race gets too close for comfort. You know, sort of a fall back plan in case Kerry's lead gets bigger than ballot fixing in Florida and a few other states can handle.



No worries, Pious John has an explanation, "We interviewed a very limited number of people that we believed were either participating in a plan to criminally and violently disrupt the Democratic National Convention, or individuals that might have known something about that plan."



And, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United State of America, says that all of the lawyers, civil liberties activists, Democratic congressmen, and others who have criticized his interrogations as political harassment designed to stifle protests in violation of the protesters' First Amendment rights are themselves guilty of "outrageous distortion."



Whew! I suppose I ought to sleep better knowing Maximum Law John is on duty ... but somehow it's having the opposite effect.



San Francisco Chronicle: Ashcroft defends interviews with protesters

Attorney General John Ashcroft is caught lying about interrogations of U.S. citizens

First he denied that the FBI was interrogating anybody about their plans for the Republican convention. Then he said they were talking to only a few people. Yesterday, Attorney General John Ashcroft, said that Federal agents interrogated only protesters he believed were plotting to firebomb media vehicles at the Democratic convention.



Putting aside the matter of the initial denial concerning the Republican convention but the excuse now including the protection of the Democratic convention, there are other problems. It turns out that FBI agents have not been asking questions about firebombs or media trucks. In fact, Ashcroft hasn't produced anybody who's even heard about a plot to attack the media ... or plans for any other disruptive acts for that matter. According Gary Bald, assistant director of the FBI's counterterrorism division, the bureau does not have enough evidence to move against any group or person who might be plotting violent protests this month in New York.



And yet the interrogation of innocent Americans by agents of the Bush government continues.



Gee, I'd hate to think that the Attorney General was setting us up for a political crackdown if the Presidential race gets too close for comfort. You know, sort of a fall back plan in case Kerry's lead gets bigger than ballot fixing in Florida and a few other states can handle.



No worries, Pious John has an explanation, "We interviewed a very limited number of people that we believed were either participating in a plan to criminally and violently disrupt the Democratic National Convention, or individuals that might have known something about that plan."



And, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United State of America, says that all of the lawyers, civil liberties activists, Democratic congressmen, and others who have criticized his interrogations as political harassment designed to stifle protests in violation of the protesters' First Amendment rights are themselves guilty of "outrageous distortion."



Whew! I suppose I ought to sleep better knowing Maximum Law John is on duty ... but somehow it's having the opposite effect.



San Francisco Chronicle: Ashcroft defends interviews with protesters

Questions somebody ought to ask Bush

Two weeks ago, standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon, after weeks of relentless attacks from George W. Bush, John Kerry tried once again to explain his vote to authorize the president to pursue war in Iraq. And, he said, even today, he'd vote the same way.



However, the question Kerry answered is not the question Bush asked ... but the Bush campaign has taken the answer and run, sending George W. Bush around the country yapping "See, I told you so."



The Bush campaign had been phrasing the question as a very narrow and careful hypothetical: "If you knew what you know now would still have voted in the affirmative?" But Kerry, in trying to explain that these matters are complex, missed the point of the Bush attack and gave them the opening for which they were hoping and now the right-wing is in full swing keeping us from asking the key question.



John Kerry needs to turn the question back on the one person on earth who can answer it:



"Mr. Bush, knowing as you do now that there were no weapons of mass destruction, no connections to al-Qaeda, and that Iraq was no threat what-so-ever to the United States of America, would you still have used the authority that you sought from Congress based on that false information to invade and occupy Iraq?"



And if, as we all expect, the answer is yes, the next question should be, "Why?"



Cato Institute (Washington): John Kerry's War Vote - A Profiles in Political Calculation

Questions somebody ought to ask Bush

Two weeks ago, standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon, after weeks of relentless attacks from George W. Bush, John Kerry tried once again to explain his vote to authorize the president to pursue war in Iraq. And, he said, even today, he'd vote the same way.



However, the question Kerry answered is not the question Bush asked ... but the Bush campaign has taken the answer and run, sending George W. Bush around the country yapping "See, I told you so."



The Bush campaign had been phrasing the question as a very narrow and careful hypothetical: "If you knew what you know now would still have voted in the affirmative?" But Kerry, in trying to explain that these matters are complex, missed the point of the Bush attack and gave them the opening for which they were hoping and now the right-wing is in full swing keeping us from asking the key question.



John Kerry needs to turn the question back on the one person on earth who can answer it:



"Mr. Bush, knowing as you do now that there were no weapons of mass destruction, no connections to al-Qaeda, and that Iraq was no threat what-so-ever to the United States of America, would you still have used the authority that you sought from Congress based on that false information to invade and occupy Iraq?"



And if, as we all expect, the answer is yes, the next question should be, "Why?"



Cato Institute (Washington): John Kerry's War Vote - A Profiles in Political Calculation

Sinking in a sea of lies: the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

They operate under the direction of Karl Rove. They are funded George W. Bush's family and friends. Their leaders have worked for the Republicans since the Nixon days campaigning against John Kerry at every turn. Yet George W. Bush denies any connection with them.



The link below is to an extensive investigation by the New York Times tracing the origins of these political thugs. Read it and then let's flush the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and get on with the real questions about what kind of a country America will be.



New York Times: Friendly Fire:The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad

Sinking in a sea of lies: the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

They operate under the direction of Karl Rove. They are funded George W. Bush's family and friends. Their leaders have worked for the Republicans since the Nixon days campaigning against John Kerry at every turn. Yet George W. Bush denies any connection with them.



The link below is to an extensive investigation by the New York Times tracing the origins of these political thugs. Read it and then let's flush the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and get on with the real questions about what kind of a country America will be.



New York Times: Friendly Fire:The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad

Get this straight: businesses do not create jobs, consumers do

This one is really easy. Despite what you have been told, businesses do not create jobs. In fact, there is no evidence that capital gains tax cuts, investment tax credits, preferred treatment of corporate dividends, repeal of the estate tax, accelerated appreciation schedules, corporate tax reductions, tax breaks for buying a Hummer, or any of the hundreds of tax breaks lavished on businesses and investors since George W. Bush took office has lead to the creation of even one job.



So who creates jobs? Easy, consumers create jobs. It works like this: without new customers business has no reason to hire more people. So, tax breaks that put money back into the pockets of those most likely to spend it will create jobs, but giving money away to those who already own as much as they want will not create jobs.



Economic Policy Institute (Washington): Job growth stalls in last two months, underlining failure of tax cuts as job creation strategy

Get this straight: businesses do not create jobs, consumers do

This one is really easy. Despite what you have been told, businesses do not create jobs. In fact, there is no evidence that capital gains tax cuts, investment tax credits, preferred treatment of corporate dividends, repeal of the estate tax, accelerated appreciation schedules, corporate tax reductions, tax breaks for buying a Hummer, or any of the hundreds of tax breaks lavished on businesses and investors since George W. Bush took office has lead to the creation of even one job.



So who creates jobs? Easy, consumers create jobs. It works like this: without new customers business has no reason to hire more people. So, tax breaks that put money back into the pockets of those most likely to spend it will create jobs, but giving money away to those who already own as much as they want will not create jobs.



Economic Policy Institute (Washington): Job growth stalls in last two months, underlining failure of tax cuts as job creation strategy

Freedom of speech has its limits

Three men, all dressed in grey suits and driving a Ford Crown Victoria sedan, pull up in front of your house. Two come to your door and knock. The taller of them, who looks like Ephraim Zimbalist, Jr., flashes a badge and tells you that they are from the FBI and would like a word with you about your plans during the week of the Republican National Convention. They'd also like to talk to you about what your neighbors, the ones with the Kerry sign in the front yard, might be up to. His partner warns you that withholding information about anyone with plans to create a disruption is a crime. Then the tall one adds that you might be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury.



Technically, at that moment, you have a right to refuse to talk to them. This is still America after all, and you can just close the door and walk away. And because you don't have to talk to them, Attorney General John Ashcroft's the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (the same outfit that recently approved the use of torture against terrorism suspects) has determined that any chilling effect that these "interviews" might have on citizens is "quite minimal," and "substantially outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order."



But maybe you'd better just invite the FBI agents in and see what you can do to help out. After all, you don't have anything to hide, right? It might be a good idea, though, to cancel your plans to attend that rally next week. Just to be safe. Wouldn't want to be part of any trouble. You never can be too careful. Besdies, you can watch it from a safe distance on Fox News.



Der Spiegel (Germany): Interrogating the Protesters

Freedom of speech has its limits

Three men, all dressed in grey suits and driving a Ford Crown Victoria sedan, pull up in front of your house. Two come to your door and knock. The taller of them, who looks like Ephraim Zimbalist, Jr., flashes a badge and tells you that they are from the FBI and would like a word with you about your plans during the week of the Republican National Convention. They'd also like to talk to you about what your neighbors, the ones with the Kerry sign in the front yard, might be up to. His partner warns you that withholding information about anyone with plans to create a disruption is a crime. Then the tall one adds that you might be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury.



Technically, at that moment, you have a right to refuse to talk to them. This is still America after all, and you can just close the door and walk away. And because you don't have to talk to them, Attorney General John Ashcroft's the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (the same outfit that recently approved the use of torture against terrorism suspects) has determined that any chilling effect that these "interviews" might have on citizens is "quite minimal," and "substantially outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order."



But maybe you'd better just invite the FBI agents in and see what you can do to help out. After all, you don't have anything to hide, right? It might be a good idea, though, to cancel your plans to attend that rally next week. Just to be safe. Wouldn't want to be part of any trouble. You never can be too careful. Besdies, you can watch it from a safe distance on Fox News.



Der Spiegel (Germany): Interrogating the Protesters

My country 'tis of thee

The family of the whistleblower in the Iraq prison abuse scandal has been forced to live in protective custody because of death threats from neighbors in their community in western Maryland.



This is such an incredibly sad commentary on America that there is nothing more to say.



Reuters: Family of Iraq Abuse Whistleblower Threatened

My country 'tis of thee

The family of the whistleblower in the Iraq prison abuse scandal has been forced to live in protective custody because of death threats from neighbors in their community in western Maryland.



This is such an incredibly sad commentary on America that there is nothing more to say.



Reuters: Family of Iraq Abuse Whistleblower Threatened

The Swift Boat counter-story: consider the source

This week's release of the book, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, seems carefully calculated to distract our attention from more pressing matters. Certainly there will be endless demands that Senator Kerry justify his service in Vietnam. We'll probably hear again from the Angry Puppeteer Dick Cheney, perhaps snarling about "sensitivity." And through it all, another week will pass with nobody seriously considering how George W. Bush served his country during those years.



Before you lend too much credence to the Swift Boat counter-story, consider the source. Take a look at the authors:



John O'Neill's obsessive hatred of John Kerry goes back to the Nixon administration when he was employed by Watergate burglar Chuck Colson to run a smear campaign against the young leader of Vietnam veterans against the war. In a particularly ironic twist, Colson directed O'Neill to, "destroy this young demagogue before he becomes a Ralph Nader." Initially, O'Neill's anger was simply over Kerry's anti-war activities, particularly his claims that American troops in Vietnam had committed atrocities (which proved to be true). But over the years O'Neill's anger became a blind obsession as Kerry rose to national prominence. What is new is that the now Bush Campaign has seen fit to give O'Neill a platform for national exposure.



However, co-author Jerome R. Corsi has an even darker side. As documented by the group Media Matters, Corsi has called Islam "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion," and said that, "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press." Corsi's obsession is a broad as it is deep, "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together." And he tosses in a helping of anti-semitism for good measure: "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judaism? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"



Finally, there's the matter of the book's publisher, Regnery Publishing, a subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, which prides itself on being, "America's leading conservative publishing company." The Regnery catalog is chock full of astonishing tomes including: a book blaming September 11 on Jimmy Carter, another offering a defense of the WWII internments of Japanese Americans recommending that we imprison American Muslims, and David (brother of Rush) Limbaugh's impassioned argument that the religious right in America is actually the victim of persecution at the hands of the liberals.



No doubt it will be quite a week for the media.



Indianapolis Star: Old nemesis stalking Kerry's campaign trail

The Swift Boat counter-story: consider the source

This week's release of the book, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, seems carefully calculated to distract our attention from more pressing matters. Certainly there will be endless demands that Senator Kerry justify his service in Vietnam. We'll probably hear again from the Angry Puppeteer Dick Cheney, perhaps snarling about "sensitivity." And through it all, another week will pass with nobody seriously considering how George W. Bush served his country during those years.



Before you lend too much credence to the Swift Boat counter-story, consider the source. Take a look at the authors:



John O'Neill's obsessive hatred of John Kerry goes back to the Nixon administration when he was employed by Watergate burglar Chuck Colson to run a smear campaign against the young leader of Vietnam veterans against the war. In a particularly ironic twist, Colson directed O'Neill to, "destroy this young demagogue before he becomes a Ralph Nader." Initially, O'Neill's anger was simply over Kerry's anti-war activities, particularly his claims that American troops in Vietnam had committed atrocities (which proved to be true). But over the years O'Neill's anger became a blind obsession as Kerry rose to national prominence. What is new is that the now Bush Campaign has seen fit to give O'Neill a platform for national exposure.



However, co-author Jerome R. Corsi has an even darker side. As documented by the group Media Matters, Corsi has called Islam "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion," and said that, "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press." Corsi's obsession is a broad as it is deep, "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together." And he tosses in a helping of anti-semitism for good measure: "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judaism? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"



Finally, there's the matter of the book's publisher, Regnery Publishing, a subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, which prides itself on being, "America's leading conservative publishing company." The Regnery catalog is chock full of astonishing tomes including: a book blaming September 11 on Jimmy Carter, another offering a defense of the WWII internments of Japanese Americans recommending that we imprison American Muslims, and David (brother of Rush) Limbaugh's impassioned argument that the religious right in America is actually the victim of persecution at the hands of the liberals.



No doubt it will be quite a week for the media.



Indianapolis Star: Old nemesis stalking Kerry's campaign trail

Scaring the wits out of us one too many times

There it was, on page twelve of my daily newspaper: "I have not seen an indication of an imminent operation," said a White House official speaking on condition of anonymity. He or she was talking about the time, two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned of imminent al-Qaida attacks against New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J.



Immediately after the warning, police sealed off streets near the Citigroup Center building and the New York Stock Exchange in New York; put employees at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank buildings in Washington through extra security checks; and added barricades and a heavily armed presence around Prudential Financial Inc.'s headquarters in Newark while in Washington, Capitol Police blocked all traffic near the building and began searching vehicles, even though no new threats to the Capitol had been found. Subway riders in Washington shared their commutes with police bearing machine guns. New Yorkers were warned by the FBI warnings threats posed by helicopters and limousines.



And now the Bush administration quietly admits that they have no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to attack U.S. buildings. Some old documents and computer files were seized in al-Qaida raids and they did include surveillance reports of the financial buildings during 2000 and 2001, but nothing in the documents themselves has suggested any attack was planned soon, the official said.



And so the spin starts. White House homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, told "Fox News Sunday" last weekend that authorities believe discovery of the surveillance has disrupted al-Qaida's plans to carry out the attacks on the financial buildings.



In other words, "thank goodness that we warned you about the non-existent threat because the warning disrupted our enemies' plans to carry out an attack that they had not planned."



Star Tribune (Minneapolis): Official: No Evidence Attack Is Imminent

Scaring the wits out of us one too many times

There it was, on page twelve of my daily newspaper: "I have not seen an indication of an imminent operation," said a White House official speaking on condition of anonymity. He or she was talking about the time, two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned of imminent al-Qaida attacks against New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J.



Immediately after the warning, police sealed off streets near the Citigroup Center building and the New York Stock Exchange in New York; put employees at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank buildings in Washington through extra security checks; and added barricades and a heavily armed presence around Prudential Financial Inc.'s headquarters in Newark while in Washington, Capitol Police blocked all traffic near the building and began searching vehicles, even though no new threats to the Capitol had been found. Subway riders in Washington shared their commutes with police bearing machine guns. New Yorkers were warned by the FBI warnings threats posed by helicopters and limousines.



And now the Bush administration quietly admits that they have no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to attack U.S. buildings. Some old documents and computer files were seized in al-Qaida raids and they did include surveillance reports of the financial buildings during 2000 and 2001, but nothing in the documents themselves has suggested any attack was planned soon, the official said.



And so the spin starts. White House homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, told "Fox News Sunday" last weekend that authorities believe discovery of the surveillance has disrupted al-Qaida's plans to carry out the attacks on the financial buildings.



In other words, "thank goodness that we warned you about the non-existent threat because the warning disrupted our enemies' plans to carry out an attack that they had not planned."



Star Tribune (Minneapolis): Official: No Evidence Attack Is Imminent

Get this: The Bush tax cuts benefited the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest of us!

It really is this simple: the Bush tax cuts went to the very wealthiest Americans. Finally, the non-partisan (although they work for the Republican controlled House) Congressional Budget Office has been forced to admit that fact.



More than one-third of Bush's tax cuts have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income, who have earned an average of $1.2 million annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office.



Still, the Republicans would have you believe that the Bush tax cuts have somehow benefited you. "But the wealthy pay the most," the Republicans argue, "and so, of course, they ought to get the most benefit."



Putting aside their silly suggestion that comparing the dollar value of tax savings is meaningful at all, there are three problems with that analysis:



1) There has been a 62% reduction in the tax rate on qualified corporate dividends (from 39.6% to 15%) since Bush started, and the wealthy are much more likley than you or me to receive corporate dividends.



2) Long-term capital gains are now taxed 25% less than when Bush took office (down now to 15% from 20%) and the wealthy can much more easily arrange their affairs to receive long-term capital gains instead of ordinary income.



3) The Republicans' analysis always ignores payroll taxes, which are 15.3%, and instead focuses on the reduction of the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10%, but even the lowest paid wage earner will pay both income and payroll taxes.



So how does that all play out?



A wage earner fortunate enough to earn more than a few thousand dollars a year will pay 25.3% (10% in income taxes plus 15.3% in payroll taxes).



A wealthy investor can easily arrange his or her affairs to collect only corporate dividends and capital gains, which will never be taxed at more than 15%.



Here's the fact: Thanks to the Bush tax cuts the wealthiest Americans, who can rely of investment income, now pay 40% less than the lowest paid wage earners.



The only thing the Republicans can truthfully say about the Bush tax cuts is that they did bring some benefit to almost everyone. And that's exactly how they are trying to spin it: "It doesn't matter who you are, the report shows that you are better off now than you were before the tax cuts,'' said a House Republican aide. "It's showing that everybody's tax burden has gone down as a result of the tax cuts.''



That may be true in a narrow technical sense, but it is as misleading as can be. The Bush tax cuts did reduce tax rates in all income brackets. But wealthy Americans in the very top income categories fared better by almost any measure.



According to the Congressional Budget Office the average after-tax income increased:

10.1% - for people in the top 1 percent of income earners



2.3% - for those in the middle 20 percent of income earners



1.6% - for those in the bottom fifth

New York Times: Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy

Get this: The Bush tax cuts benefited the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest of us!

It really is this simple: the Bush tax cuts went to the very wealthiest Americans. Finally, the non-partisan (although they work for the Republican controlled House) Congressional Budget Office has been forced to admit that fact.



More than one-third of Bush's tax cuts have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income, who have earned an average of $1.2 million annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office.



Still, the Republicans would have you believe that the Bush tax cuts have somehow benefited you. "But the wealthy pay the most," the Republicans argue, "and so, of course, they ought to get the most benefit."



Putting aside their silly suggestion that comparing the dollar value of tax savings is meaningful at all, there are three problems with that analysis:



1) There has been a 62% reduction in the tax rate on qualified corporate dividends (from 39.6% to 15%) since Bush started, and the wealthy are much more likley than you or me to receive corporate dividends.



2) Long-term capital gains are now taxed 25% less than when Bush took office (down now to 15% from 20%) and the wealthy can much more easily arrange their affairs to receive long-term capital gains instead of ordinary income.



3) The Republicans' analysis always ignores payroll taxes, which are 15.3%, and instead focuses on the reduction of the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10%, but even the lowest paid wage earner will pay both income and payroll taxes.



So how does that all play out?



A wage earner fortunate enough to earn more than a few thousand dollars a year will pay 25.3% (10% in income taxes plus 15.3% in payroll taxes).



A wealthy investor can easily arrange his or her affairs to collect only corporate dividends and capital gains, which will never be taxed at more than 15%.



Here's the fact: Thanks to the Bush tax cuts the wealthiest Americans, who can rely of investment income, now pay 40% less than the lowest paid wage earners.



The only thing the Republicans can truthfully say about the Bush tax cuts is that they did bring some benefit to almost everyone. And that's exactly how they are trying to spin it: "It doesn't matter who you are, the report shows that you are better off now than you were before the tax cuts,'' said a House Republican aide. "It's showing that everybody's tax burden has gone down as a result of the tax cuts.''



That may be true in a narrow technical sense, but it is as misleading as can be. The Bush tax cuts did reduce tax rates in all income brackets. But wealthy Americans in the very top income categories fared better by almost any measure.



According to the Congressional Budget Office the average after-tax income increased:

10.1% - for people in the top 1 percent of income earners



2.3% - for those in the middle 20 percent of income earners



1.6% - for those in the bottom fifth

New York Times: Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy

The place where we meet to seek this highest is holy ground

Remember a few years ago when the Taliban used field artillery to blast away several statues of the Buddha? Remember the worldwide, righteous, and fully justified outrage?



Why would we expect a different outcome when America is the one desecrating a religious shrine?



Nevertheless, after spending a couple of days shooting up the cemetery and driving tanks over graves, the U.S. is now poised to blast away at a holy shrine in Iraq. And, what is more, we've got the audacity to blame it on the Iraqis. We've declared that it's Muqtada Sadr's fault for making the mosque a legitimate military target by hiding out there. (As an aside: If a Christian fugitive dashes into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is that "seeking sanctuary," or does it make the church a "legitimate target?" Let's hope nobody asks that question any time soon.)



The Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf has been a beacon for the Muslim faithful for more than a thousand years. And you have to admit that this place does seem to be pretty important. It was built in the 8th century on the site where Imam Ali, cousin and son-in-law of the prophet Muhammad (and in the eyes of the faithful, the legitimate successor to Muhammad) is buried. Today the the mosque is a repository of riches: precious gifts from sultans and potentates are housed there, as well as offering boxes are stuffed with currency from all over the world. And if that's not enough, the Imam Ali shrine is the heart of Najaf and attracts hundreds of thousands of pilgrims and tourists each year.



Right next to the mosque is a cemetery known as the Valley of Peace. It is one of the world's biggest graveyards, containing the remains of millions who wanted to be interred close to Ali. And that's where, for the past week, U.S. soldiers have been shooting it out and driving their tanks around. The worldwide media (except in the U.S.) have carried pictures showing U.S. soldiers stepping on graves and destroying the photos of loved ones laid on top of the crypts.



So what do you suppose the rest of the world is saying about this?



"Illegal under the Geneva Conventions, any fighting or destruction to the mosque would result in incalculable damage to the image and interests of the United States and would be widely condemned across the world," the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council said.



Shiites "worldwide are shocked and outraged over what is going on in Najaf," said Imam Moustafa Al-Qazwini, a prominent Shiite leader in Southern California. "They consider it an assault on the sanctity of Islam and in particular Shia Islam. Any attack on that city will destroy America's future in Iraq completely. It will completely discredit America and make it the new tyrant in the eyes of Shias worldwide."



"The United States is slaughtering the people of one of the holiest Islamic cities, and the Muslim world and the Iraqi nation will not stand by," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of neighboring Iran, said in an address on Iranian state television.



Los Angeles Times: World's Shiites Warn That U.S. Is Treading on Sensitive Ground

The place where we meet to seek this highest is holy ground

Remember a few years ago when the Taliban used field artillery to blast away several statues of the Buddha? Remember the worldwide, righteous, and fully justified outrage?



Why would we expect a different outcome when America is the one desecrating a religious shrine?



Nevertheless, after spending a couple of days shooting up the cemetery and driving tanks over graves, the U.S. is now poised to blast away at a holy shrine in Iraq. And, what is more, we've got the audacity to blame it on the Iraqis. We've declared that it's Muqtada Sadr's fault for making the mosque a legitimate military target by hiding out there. (As an aside: If a Christian fugitive dashes into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is that "seeking sanctuary," or does it make the church a "legitimate target?" Let's hope nobody asks that question any time soon.)



The Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf has been a beacon for the Muslim faithful for more than a thousand years. And you have to admit that this place does seem to be pretty important. It was built in the 8th century on the site where Imam Ali, cousin and son-in-law of the prophet Muhammad (and in the eyes of the faithful, the legitimate successor to Muhammad) is buried. Today the the mosque is a repository of riches: precious gifts from sultans and potentates are housed there, as well as offering boxes are stuffed with currency from all over the world. And if that's not enough, the Imam Ali shrine is the heart of Najaf and attracts hundreds of thousands of pilgrims and tourists each year.



Right next to the mosque is a cemetery known as the Valley of Peace. It is one of the world's biggest graveyards, containing the remains of millions who wanted to be interred close to Ali. And that's where, for the past week, U.S. soldiers have been shooting it out and driving their tanks around. The worldwide media (except in the U.S.) have carried pictures showing U.S. soldiers stepping on graves and destroying the photos of loved ones laid on top of the crypts.



So what do you suppose the rest of the world is saying about this?



"Illegal under the Geneva Conventions, any fighting or destruction to the mosque would result in incalculable damage to the image and interests of the United States and would be widely condemned across the world," the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council said.



Shiites "worldwide are shocked and outraged over what is going on in Najaf," said Imam Moustafa Al-Qazwini, a prominent Shiite leader in Southern California. "They consider it an assault on the sanctity of Islam and in particular Shia Islam. Any attack on that city will destroy America's future in Iraq completely. It will completely discredit America and make it the new tyrant in the eyes of Shias worldwide."



"The United States is slaughtering the people of one of the holiest Islamic cities, and the Muslim world and the Iraqi nation will not stand by," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of neighboring Iran, said in an address on Iranian state television.



Los Angeles Times: World's Shiites Warn That U.S. Is Treading on Sensitive Ground

"Protest against terrorism is a terrorist act."

"If you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you have terrorism at that protest," said Mike Van Winkle, of the California Attorney General's Office. "A protest against that is a terrorist act." He was talking about an incident in Oakland, CA where police opened fire on the peaceful crowd with wooden pellets. The Attorney General's Office had issued a bulletin to local police warning about the potential for terrorist violence at an antiwar protest. It later turned out there had been no real basis for the terrorism warning.



Fast forward now to the Republican National Convention where 250,000 protesters are expected. They are organized and they are capitalizing on the pent-up frustration and anger of the American people. The web site of the group "RNCNotWelcome.org" has gathered and posted inside information on the location of special delegates' events and is distributing organizing kits. Organizers are not focusing on the convention center because it will bee too heavily guarded with more than 36,000 police on duty, but rather on city wide targets.



The lengthy story from the Guardian of London, linked below, covers the RNC story as well as the decline in American civil liberties in great detail. Even if you don't usually follow the links from this blog, follow this one. Read this story and weep. And ask where the mainstream American media is on this story. Better to be "fair and balanced" rather than risk being called "liberal media."



Guardian (UK): New York Lockdown

"Protest against terrorism is a terrorist act."

"If you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you have terrorism at that protest," said Mike Van Winkle, of the California Attorney General's Office. "A protest against that is a terrorist act." He was talking about an incident in Oakland, CA where police opened fire on the peaceful crowd with wooden pellets. The Attorney General's Office had issued a bulletin to local police warning about the potential for terrorist violence at an antiwar protest. It later turned out there had been no real basis for the terrorism warning.



Fast forward now to the Republican National Convention where 250,000 protesters are expected. They are organized and they are capitalizing on the pent-up frustration and anger of the American people. The web site of the group "RNCNotWelcome.org" has gathered and posted inside information on the location of special delegates' events and is distributing organizing kits. Organizers are not focusing on the convention center because it will bee too heavily guarded with more than 36,000 police on duty, but rather on city wide targets.



The lengthy story from the Guardian of London, linked below, covers the RNC story as well as the decline in American civil liberties in great detail. Even if you don't usually follow the links from this blog, follow this one. Read this story and weep. And ask where the mainstream American media is on this story. Better to be "fair and balanced" rather than risk being called "liberal media."



Guardian (UK): New York Lockdown

Bush launches final assault on the American middle class, calls for national sales tax to replace Federal income tax

If you listen carefully, they always tell you where they are headed. Yesterday, in remarks that were barely covered by the U.S. media, George W. Bush floated the idea of a national sales tax in place of the income tax and let it slip that a major overhaul of the tax code will be high on his list if he is elected in November.



There has been a lunatic fringe movement pushing this idea for several years, but most respectable policy analysts see the movement for what it is: the final step in the destruction of a fair and progressive tax system. "A sales tax is fair. You can control you own tax bill by controlling your spending," the proponents argue. And that's true, provided you don't have to spend every nickel you earn just to live.



We now stand at the final stage of an orchestrated campaign by conservatives to do away with a progressive tax system by replacing the income tax with a national sales tax or flat tax which would cut the taxes of corporations and the very rich and impose huge tax hikes on the vast majority of American families. They've already succeeded in nearly eliminating most taxes on investments and estate wealth, leaving only wage-earners to pay taxes. The national retail sales tax, which will be promoted as "simplification," is the crown jewel.



Reliable estimates by the Price Waterhouse Economic Policy Group estimate the tax rate would need to be at least 15%. Imagine if tomorrow the price of everything you buy were increased by 15% or more! How would that affect you? We can get an idea by considering how present state sales taxes affect people at different income levels: the bottom 20 percent, with an average income of $9,300, pay eight times more of their income in state sales and excise taxes than wealthiest 1 percent, who have an average income of $1.1 million.



Reuters: Bush Says National Sales Tax Worth Considering

Bush launches final assault on the American middle class, calls for national sales tax to replace Federal income tax

If you listen carefully, they always tell you where they are headed. Yesterday, in remarks that were barely covered by the U.S. media, George W. Bush floated the idea of a national sales tax in place of the income tax and let it slip that a major overhaul of the tax code will be high on his list if he is elected in November.



There has been a lunatic fringe movement pushing this idea for several years, but most respectable policy analysts see the movement for what it is: the final step in the destruction of a fair and progressive tax system. "A sales tax is fair. You can control you own tax bill by controlling your spending," the proponents argue. And that's true, provided you don't have to spend every nickel you earn just to live.



We now stand at the final stage of an orchestrated campaign by conservatives to do away with a progressive tax system by replacing the income tax with a national sales tax or flat tax which would cut the taxes of corporations and the very rich and impose huge tax hikes on the vast majority of American families. They've already succeeded in nearly eliminating most taxes on investments and estate wealth, leaving only wage-earners to pay taxes. The national retail sales tax, which will be promoted as "simplification," is the crown jewel.



Reliable estimates by the Price Waterhouse Economic Policy Group estimate the tax rate would need to be at least 15%. Imagine if tomorrow the price of everything you buy were increased by 15% or more! How would that affect you? We can get an idea by considering how present state sales taxes affect people at different income levels: the bottom 20 percent, with an average income of $9,300, pay eight times more of their income in state sales and excise taxes than wealthiest 1 percent, who have an average income of $1.1 million.



Reuters: Bush Says National Sales Tax Worth Considering

See, they really do love me!

Have you noticed that everyone is always waving and clapping and generally wildly enthusiastic at Bush events? Ever wondered why? Turns out the Republican National Committee requires you to sign a loyalty oath before you can get a ticket to the event. That one sure-fire way to avoid hecklers.



Boston Globe: Bush-backers-only policy riles voters at RNC rallies

See, they really do love me!

Have you noticed that everyone is always waving and clapping and generally wildly enthusiastic at Bush events? Ever wondered why? Turns out the Republican National Committee requires you to sign a loyalty oath before you can get a ticket to the event. That one sure-fire way to avoid hecklers.



Boston Globe: Bush-backers-only policy riles voters at RNC rallies

As in Vietnam forty years ago, we've got them right where they want us

In one corner we have Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and in the other cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. It really shouldn't even be much of a match-up. Al-Sadr has only a rag tag collection of Iraqi insurgents while Allawi has the full force and might of the U.S. military. But, paradoxically, as with Ho Chi Min's Viet Cong insurgents four decades ago, the involvement of the U.S. military is turning into al-Sadr's greatest strength.



When Allawi was installed by the U.S. occupation force, the self-styled strongman lost little time before declaring that his government wouldn't tolerate the insurgency that's swept the country. Here's the way that plays out day-by-day: U.S. gunships and fighter jets pound Shiite Muslim insurgents and then back off so that Allawi's forces can move in and claim victory for Iraq. However, when al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia on the ground overrun neighborhoods from Baghdad to Basra, the Iraqi police force and National Guard fight for a little while, and then run.



And so, in order to defend his country, Allawi and the interim government must increasingly turn to the American military ground forces, who were already reviled by many Iraqis as an army of occupation, to fight against what are now becoming widely viewed as Iraqi freedom fighters willing to sacrifice their own lives defending their homeland against foreign invaders.



After six weeks of this, Allawi's Cabinet approved an emergency resolution declaring a state of emergency which will empower Allawi to impose martial law on Iraq. That announcement is expected this week. Whether such measures are necessary or not, it's clear that Allawi's forces have neither the training nor the equipment to enforce order outside Baghdad, a capital that's looking increasingly besieged.



So, guess who will wind up enforcing martial law on the people of Iraq.



On Friday al-Sadr blamed all the violence in Iraq on the United States, which he called "our enemy and the enemy of the people," in a sermon read on his behalf at the Kufa Mosque near Najaf.



But there is a difference between Ho Chi Min and Muqtada al-Sadr. Inevitably the Iraqi insurgents find that they have no alternative but to take their fight for freedom to the heart of their enemy. But unlike Ho Chi Min all those years ago, this time they will have the means to take the fight directly into this country.



And when they do so we will wonder why they've attacked us when we're the ones who liberated their country for them. No doubt we'll blame it on "terrorists who hate freedom." What we ought to do instead is remember that none of this was necessary, that this is a war of choice sold to the American people by George W. Bush and crew.



Duluth News Tribune: Iraqi leader faces dilemma

As in Vietnam forty years ago, we've got them right where they want us

In one corner we have Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and in the other cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. It really shouldn't even be much of a match-up. Al-Sadr has only a rag tag collection of Iraqi insurgents while Allawi has the full force and might of the U.S. military. But, paradoxically, as with Ho Chi Min's Viet Cong insurgents four decades ago, the involvement of the U.S. military is turning into al-Sadr's greatest strength.



When Allawi was installed by the U.S. occupation force, the self-styled strongman lost little time before declaring that his government wouldn't tolerate the insurgency that's swept the country. Here's the way that plays out day-by-day: U.S. gunships and fighter jets pound Shiite Muslim insurgents and then back off so that Allawi's forces can move in and claim victory for Iraq. However, when al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia on the ground overrun neighborhoods from Baghdad to Basra, the Iraqi police force and National Guard fight for a little while, and then run.



And so, in order to defend his country, Allawi and the interim government must increasingly turn to the American military ground forces, who were already reviled by many Iraqis as an army of occupation, to fight against what are now becoming widely viewed as Iraqi freedom fighters willing to sacrifice their own lives defending their homeland against foreign invaders.



After six weeks of this, Allawi's Cabinet approved an emergency resolution declaring a state of emergency which will empower Allawi to impose martial law on Iraq. That announcement is expected this week. Whether such measures are necessary or not, it's clear that Allawi's forces have neither the training nor the equipment to enforce order outside Baghdad, a capital that's looking increasingly besieged.



So, guess who will wind up enforcing martial law on the people of Iraq.



On Friday al-Sadr blamed all the violence in Iraq on the United States, which he called "our enemy and the enemy of the people," in a sermon read on his behalf at the Kufa Mosque near Najaf.



But there is a difference between Ho Chi Min and Muqtada al-Sadr. Inevitably the Iraqi insurgents find that they have no alternative but to take their fight for freedom to the heart of their enemy. But unlike Ho Chi Min all those years ago, this time they will have the means to take the fight directly into this country.



And when they do so we will wonder why they've attacked us when we're the ones who liberated their country for them. No doubt we'll blame it on "terrorists who hate freedom." What we ought to do instead is remember that none of this was necessary, that this is a war of choice sold to the American people by George W. Bush and crew.



Duluth News Tribune: Iraqi leader faces dilemma

As another U.S. seeded dictatorship takes root, the world wonders if Americans will ever learn

As Americans stand by and watch our hand-picked puppet in Iraq is turning into another military dictator. Unable to bring any semblance of order to the chaotic mess that we've made of Iraq, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is about to impose martial law. No dobut this will include curfews, searches, seizures, and arrests without warrant, the closing of newspapers, and all of the other standard paraphernalia that usually accompany a dictatorship. So much for George W. Bush's promise to deliver "the almighty's gift of freedom" to the long suffering people of Iraq.



(As a sidelight, you might recall that Allawi is the U.S. appointed interim Prime Minister to whom America turned over power early. He's also the same fellow who personally executed several suspected insurgents in order to set an example for his police force. Click here for that story which has been largely ignored by the U.S. media.)



This seems to be a long standing tradition with American involvement. Liberation by the U.S. promises freedom, peace, and prosperity but, more often than not, delivers decades of repression, suffering and death. The Shah of Iran, Diem in Vietnam, Pinochet in Chile, and Noriega in Panama. Not to mention the Taliban (and, ironically, Osama Bin Laden who was trained and placed by the CIA) in Afghanistan. (Click here for a more complete chronology.)



George W. Bush still insists that they "hate us because we love freedom." If they hate us it's because the fact is because we don't much care about anyone's freedom but our own.



Independent (London): Iraq set to use martial law in terror fight

As another U.S. seeded dictatorship takes root, the world wonders if Americans will ever learn

As Americans stand by and watch our hand-picked puppet in Iraq is turning into another military dictator. Unable to bring any semblance of order to the chaotic mess that we've made of Iraq, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is about to impose martial law. No dobut this will include curfews, searches, seizures, and arrests without warrant, the closing of newspapers, and all of the other standard paraphernalia that usually accompany a dictatorship. So much for George W. Bush's promise to deliver "the almighty's gift of freedom" to the long suffering people of Iraq.



(As a sidelight, you might recall that Allawi is the U.S. appointed interim Prime Minister to whom America turned over power early. He's also the same fellow who personally executed several suspected insurgents in order to set an example for his police force. Click here for that story which has been largely ignored by the U.S. media.)



This seems to be a long standing tradition with American involvement. Liberation by the U.S. promises freedom, peace, and prosperity but, more often than not, delivers decades of repression, suffering and death. The Shah of Iran, Diem in Vietnam, Pinochet in Chile, and Noriega in Panama. Not to mention the Taliban (and, ironically, Osama Bin Laden who was trained and placed by the CIA) in Afghanistan. (Click here for a more complete chronology.)



George W. Bush still insists that they "hate us because we love freedom." If they hate us it's because the fact is because we don't much care about anyone's freedom but our own.



Independent (London): Iraq set to use martial law in terror fight

No end to the outrage: outsourcing war crimes

The Army awarded a new "no bid" contract to CACI, the private company running prisons in Iraq, at the same time as CACI is being prosecuted for prisoner torture in Iraq.



That's right, the same folks who brought us images of U.S. soldiers taunting naked Iraqi prisoners and led to an on-going series of investigations by the Pentagon. The same outfit found responsible in a report by U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba of serious abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel and private contractors at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison were just re-hired without any bids or competition.



The Army said that coalition forces were "satisfied" with CACI's performance, and said that there had been no evidence to date that CACI itself was responsible for wrongdoing in connection with the scandal. An Army official said CACI was awarded the contract without competitive bidding in order to avoid any lapse in providing private interrogators to question prisoners held at U.S.-run facilities in Iraq. "We awarded to CACI because they were in place, and we couldn't get another contract in place" before mid-August.



The official said the Army planned to award a competitive contract for private interrogators in coming months.



Los Angeles Times: Army Gives Contract to Company in Jail Scandal

No end to the outrage: outsourcing war crimes

The Army awarded a new "no bid" contract to CACI, the private company running prisons in Iraq, at the same time as CACI is being prosecuted for prisoner torture in Iraq.



That's right, the same folks who brought us images of U.S. soldiers taunting naked Iraqi prisoners and led to an on-going series of investigations by the Pentagon. The same outfit found responsible in a report by U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba of serious abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel and private contractors at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison were just re-hired without any bids or competition.



The Army said that coalition forces were "satisfied" with CACI's performance, and said that there had been no evidence to date that CACI itself was responsible for wrongdoing in connection with the scandal. An Army official said CACI was awarded the contract without competitive bidding in order to avoid any lapse in providing private interrogators to question prisoners held at U.S.-run facilities in Iraq. "We awarded to CACI because they were in place, and we couldn't get another contract in place" before mid-August.



The official said the Army planned to award a competitive contract for private interrogators in coming months.



Los Angeles Times: Army Gives Contract to Company in Jail Scandal

Where are the indictments?

In the first hours after the 2001 attacks and ever since, George W. Bush and all of his deputies have consistently insisted that neither Bush nor any of his deputies had credible evidence before the attacks to suggest that al-Qaida was about to strike on American soil.



But last weekend the administration ratched up the alert level ... based upon credible evidence they said ... evidence that was four years old.



So, either George W. Bush and members of his administration have lied to us since 9/11/01 ... or they lied to us last weekend.



Only a few years ago we impeached Bill Clinton following accusations of lying. Why not George Bush?



The Age (Australia): White House defends terror alerts

Where are the indictments?

In the first hours after the 2001 attacks and ever since, George W. Bush and all of his deputies have consistently insisted that neither Bush nor any of his deputies had credible evidence before the attacks to suggest that al-Qaida was about to strike on American soil.



But last weekend the administration ratched up the alert level ... based upon credible evidence they said ... evidence that was four years old.



So, either George W. Bush and members of his administration have lied to us since 9/11/01 ... or they lied to us last weekend.



Only a few years ago we impeached Bill Clinton following accusations of lying. Why not George Bush?



The Age (Australia): White House defends terror alerts

Touchy Times in Florida

If you want to make sure your vote is counted, be sure to cast an absentee ballot because it's the only way to create a paper trail which will come in very handy if there's a recount. So urged the Republican party of Florida in a mailing to supporters.



This following months of instance that the new electronic voting machines are fool proof. So fool proof in fact that Governor Jeb Bush has blocked as totally unnecessary all moves to adapt the electronic machines to provide a paper receipt.



It's probably paranoid to worry that the Florida Repugnicants have hatched a plot to trigger a recount where only their ballots can be recounted, right? I mean this would be as bad as trying to stage a "purge" of voter registration rolls that removes African Americans and Democrats. Nobody would try that, right?



Meanwhile, according to several Florida newspapers, the demand for absentee ballots has mushroomed. At the very least, look for a late and fluctuating vote returns total Florida in November ... which in itself will be enough to call into question Florida's ability to hold an election.



The Ledger (Lakeland, FL): To Touch, Or Not to Touch?

Touchy Times in Florida

If you want to make sure your vote is counted, be sure to cast an absentee ballot because it's the only way to create a paper trail which will come in very handy if there's a recount. So urged the Republican party of Florida in a mailing to supporters.



This following months of instance that the new electronic voting machines are fool proof. So fool proof in fact that Governor Jeb Bush has blocked as totally unnecessary all moves to adapt the electronic machines to provide a paper receipt.



It's probably paranoid to worry that the Florida Repugnicants have hatched a plot to trigger a recount where only their ballots can be recounted, right? I mean this would be as bad as trying to stage a "purge" of voter registration rolls that removes African Americans and Democrats. Nobody would try that, right?



Meanwhile, according to several Florida newspapers, the demand for absentee ballots has mushroomed. At the very least, look for a late and fluctuating vote returns total Florida in November ... which in itself will be enough to call into question Florida's ability to hold an election.



The Ledger (Lakeland, FL): To Touch, Or Not to Touch?

Maybe I think too much

Despite the persistent canard that George W. Bush is just a good-times frat-boy who's wandered his way through life in a generally thoughtless way, what if, to borrow from a Paul Simon lyric, maybe he thinks too much?



"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.



The rules are held together by adherence to a common doctrine. Not even the smallest deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated. But it is also necessary to believe that events happened in the desired manner. And if it is necessary to rearrange one's memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to forget that one has done so. The trick of doing this can be learned like any other mental technique. This is called "doublethink."



by George Orwell



Business Report (South Africa): US growth slows sharply as consumers spend less



Globe and Mail (Britain): Don't let politics confuse U.S. growth data