What the Hell is Going on Here?

"Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
.....
FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt"

911 Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

"A web site has launched a campaign to deter theater owners from showing Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9-11". A list of theaters currently committed to showing the film is provided along with exhortations to call and demand that the film be dropped. Some theater owners are reporting receiving death threats."

check who is footing the bill for this push for Censorship, lol

I couldn't let this one pass by without making note of it:

State Dept. Concedes Errors in Terror Data


By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A17

Two months ago, the Bush administration released its annual report card on counterterrorism and gave itself an A. The number of terrorist attacks around the globe, according to the State Department report called "Patterns of Global Terrorism," was at the lowest ebb in the past 34 years.

Ambassador at Large for Counterterrorism J. Cofer Black, citing the existence of only 190 acts of terrorism in 2003, called it "good news" attributable in part to unprecedented U.S. collaboration with foreign partners. He predicted the trend would continue in 2004. Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage cited the data as "clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight."

Not long afterward, however, the report was pilloried by academics, a lawmaker and others. They said its math defied the reality of a steady growth in the number and significance of terrorist attacks in 2003, as well as the worst type of attacks spreading from just a few countries to at least 10.

The Congressional Research Service cited the complaints in a June 1 report urging a review of the report's "structure and content." Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), senior Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, said in a May 17 letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that "it is deplorable that the . . . report would claim that terrorism attacks are decreasing when in fact significant terrorist activity is at a 20-year high."

Seems like I saw something about that report on the daily show.
On a different but related matter:
I cannot even fathom how anyone could defend an administration so frought with criminal negligence and corruption. If this were a private company, we'd have heads on platters. Ashcroft refusing to answer senators' questions is punishable by jail UNTIL HE ANSWERS! It's called contempt and translates to contempt of AMERICA. Quoting Ashcroft:
" We believe that to provide this kind of information would impair the ability of advice-giving in the executive branch."
Good fucking grief.

I love that show - it's friggin hillarious, sometimes totally stupid, but more often right on target. I'm glad they can provide political humor and social commentary at the same time - world events in last couple of years has been depressing and the Daily show cheers me up

As usual, the left (Psi) spins little lies of OMISSION. What none of you mentioned, is that when this report was targeted, the administration immediately admitted that the report was flawed and rescended it. Phayyde, I'm fixing to use an analogy, and I know you don't get them sooo...this portion is for everyone else. The report is flawed in the following sense, total terrorism is down...however the number of significant attacks is up; Hurricane Camille was the most powerful storm ever recorded, but Hugo-a much less powerful storm-caused MUUUCHHH more monetary damage. To say that terrorism is down, or up for that matter, depends on what criteria you use and when you actually begin your timeline.

Aren't you tired of constantly being let down, Django?

actually - all statements of virtually any type can be considered if you like, as 'lies of omission' - because no statement can contain the full complexity and detail of a given situation, event or causal chain.
I think it appears they are desperate for some 'good news' - desperate enough to make it up

schtuff? No comment? Did anyone else find it even mildly significant?
Damn...I guess I just don't get it. I didn't really find the "Terrorism is Down" thing nearly as offensive as a Ashcroft's utter disregard for the Senate.

Phayyde: I have been disappointed in the outcomes of specific portions of this endeavor, but the only thing I have been let down by, is the segment of our population that has put every action of this administration under an electron microscope, and then put the most negative spin possible on what they see for their own political agendas.

Psi: What you say is true, however, willfully lying by ommission is a diiferent thing altogether. The complexities of this report, to name only a few, are the changing definitions of "terrorism". Acts defined in todays world as terrorism may not have been when the older data on the subject was collected, and vice-versa, thus skewing the information. For example; the murder of any minority -because of their minority- 5 years ago was just murder, now it's a "hate crime" with a seperate set of punishments. And, there are many who would have "hate crimes" classified as terrorism. A more obtuse example would be; in the not so distant future, many heart attacks will not be called heart attacks. As medical science is discovering more and more, the consequences of certain bacterial and viral infections that are infact, the cause of a large percentage of heart disease. When that comes to be, will the number of heart attacks drop, or just be relabeled?

Voodoo: I agree with the first segment of your post, however, I am more disgusted with the election-year-political-wrangling, the majority of which is originating on the left. I don't particularly LIKE Ashcroft, as I have stated in previous posts, but If I had to listen to the continuous, inflammatory, baseless accusations directed at the members of this administration by the likes of Kennedy and Pelosi, I too would have utter disregard for Congress. Abraham Lincoln said (paraphrase) Congressmen that take actions or make statements, which undermine the nations morale (sedition), or otherwise effect the nations unity, during times of war, should be shot or hung as traitors.

Ashcroft simply does not want the deeper story of how the orders to torture came from high-level policy makers who sought every means possible to circumvent the geneva convention and anti-torture treaty. Including totally insane leaps of semantics where 'torture' is only defined as physical pain intense enough to seem like death or organ failure.
Anything less was justified as OK for those not even proven guilty,
including: severe beating, cold and heat exposure, sleep deprivation, body stressing, naked exposure to attack dogs, sexual abuse, rape and humilliation, forcing of renunciation of the prisoners religion, covering detainees in feces, forced homosexual acts, suffocation and electrical shocks.
Does this sound like the American Way to you, Django?
Do you support those who would advocate such policies against those not yet given a trial -

I know you/we are angry and defenisve about the attacks on our country and others. But barbaric violence and assymetric warfare does not justify tosing off America's traditional basic respect of human rights and ethics ....

This is so wrong at the core and so barbaric that you should be appalled and enraged that the Military you proudly serve in would be used in such a way.

It will only lead to this type of behavior becoming self-justified by other countries in other conflicts. The world is saddened if our troops of traditionally high ethical standards are mistreated - but if our troops become routine torturers we will lose all sympathy ....

Ya' know Voodoo, it's ironic that I can't think of one example of a President in our history (regardless of party, or whether that President was in office when a war began, or simply "inherited" it), that made such out-right seditious remarks as certain members of Congress have. The irony being, that Congress is the only branch that can officially declare war, which they did infact in this case.

The sad thing is, you are so ignorant of what "war" really is, that you dont realize that this has always been the case. If it weren't, you wouldn't have 80 year old veterans of WWII that still won't talk about what they HAD to do in the midst of combat. That's why the last person who wants to go to war, is the soldier. I don't relish the idea of torture of any kind, however, for the most part every technique you mentioned has been used for 225 years by this and every other country in the world for longer - excepting of course electric shock. Despite some peoples apparent belief, although the bomb maybe smarter, the basics of war remain the same as the have for mellinia, kill, mame, injure, more of their guys than they can replace, and do it losing as few of you men as possible. This is the only way any was is won. To this extent this campain has been WILDLY successful, as more of our men died on single days of previous wars, than have died in 2 years of combat in 2 countries.

fuck... the more I typed and re-read my response, the less I actually understood what I was responding to.
Truth is Django, I am more of a political ally of yours than you might think. Our ideologies are quite similar. Yet we see this whole thing so differently. It really amazes me. This is a very polarizing issue for this country and I think we are being divided by the very admin. you defend so vehemently. I heard some bleeding heart lib say last night that "GW is the Great Uniter...he's united almost everyone in the world against us."
It's true, and it pisses me off when these guys make us look so stoopid. I love this country, but I despise GW.

Wildly successful in smearing our integrity as a free, just, lawful and humane nation with shit.
why do you think i'm so ignorant of what "war" really is, that i'd believe that this shit had not been going on forever? Quote"The sad thing is, you are so ignorant of what "war" really is, that you dont realize that this has always been the case."
Not at all my friend,
the geneva convention represents the conclusion among world nations that the 225 years you mentioned of sadistic treatment in the name of war was ENOUGH.
If we are truly 'civilized' then a certain level of morality in the face of mortal conflict is how to prove it.
plus you never seem to address the fact that many of the tortured were civilians, not in any way proven guilty or even given a cursory trial

Also it's well known that if you torture and threaten people on too wide a scale - with poor focus as in the case of dozens of iraqi prisons/detention camps now under military investigation - all you do is muddy your intelligence with false confessions! true?

Voodoo: The question is not whether or not we agree with each other, the question is, what is the truth.
And the truth is, that many countries on this planet are allied with us in this war, for entirely unselfish reasons. They believe-given the information they have-that it's the right thing to do. Many of the Nations that have most vehemently argued against us in this, have now been proven to have alterior motives in doing so. So, I revert to my core belief; America first! Friends second, fuck the rest!

Psi: The Geneva Convention as an Idealogical fuck doll, is a grand concept. In reality, it's impotent, wishful thinking. Only those who ride the sidelines and then presume to play Monday-morning quarterback have any regard for it's pertinance in war. And, any trace of a beginning of a thaught that you may have that war in ANY case is "free, just, lawful and humane" should be reserved for those liberal wet dreams you must writhe around with in the wee small hours.
Not any evidence has been given, that any person known to be the target of this "torture" was actually an "innocent civilian". Only a Liberal could make the statement "many of the tortured were civilians, not in any way proven guilty or even given a cursory trial", but not afford our own people the same priveledge. Next time you're pokin' a daisy into the rifle barrel of some guy wearing a towel on his head, be sure to mention your rights under the Geneva convention. Oh! But don't be too disappointed if he saws your head off, because the Geneva convention only covers those deemed to be "lawful combatants". Thus, they would not have ever covered those so-called "innocent civilians".

"Not any evidence has been given, that any person known to be the target of this "torture" was actually an "innocent civilian". Only a Liberal could make the statement "

Bullshit - in fact Triple bullshit:

First: Red cross figures estimated 60% or more of the detainees were rounded up in groups for simply being in the vicinity of a bombing or voilent incident.
Second: If they are all guilty & not simply mostly iraqi civilians then why have there been 3 or so mass releases of hundreds from that prison and others since the scandal?
Third: the case of the arab Reuters reporters who were rounded up and subjected to the same type treatment by our military under suspicion of being insurgents and not journalists.

Or maybe you just didnt actually read the Tabuga report - what kind of sicko are you man? Torture is wrong, period. And it's only effective for getting data in limited circumstances - if this torture issue is so sissy of a thing to whine about - try it on yourself for a few hours, or days and see if it's something you can just brush off as a college prank ;) or see how you feel when it becomes commonplace, even in your own country .....

(imho) WAR does not invalidate the "golden Rule" - if you would not like to be tortured, raped and smeared in shit - don't advocate such treatment of others - for ANY reason, EVER

"Not any evidence has been given, that any person known to be the target of this "torture" was actually an "innocent civilian". Only a Liberal could make the statement": I think that this may be your version of liberal-media "sound-byting". What I actually wrote, now you will actually have to pay attention to period placement to define this sentence, was; [Only a Liberal could make the statement "many of the tortured were civilians, not in any way proven guilty or even given a cursory trial", but not afford our own people the same priveledge.] And, what that means is, that you in your zeal to attack Bush, would ASSUME guilt for our soldiers and their leadership, and then argue that their "victims" were never afforded due process....the epitimy of hypocricy.

And if that were not a good enough example of leftist political-wrangling, you responded to my rebuttle of your foundless claims of civilian torture with this:

"First: Red cross figures estimated 60% or more of the detainees were rounded up in groups for simply being in the vicinity of a bombing or voilent incident.
Second: If they are all guilty & not simply mostly iraqi civilians then why have there been 3 or so mass releases of hundreds from that prison and others since the scandal?
Third: the case of the arab Reuters reporters who were rounded up and subjected to the same type treatment by our military under suspicion of being insurgents and not journalists."

None of which show claim of the earlier description of "severe beating, cold and heat exposure, sleep deprivation, body stressing, naked exposure to attack dogs, sexual abuse, rape and humilliation, forcing of renunciation of the prisoners religion, covering detainees in feces, forced homosexual acts, suffocation and electrical shocks."

But what is most laughable about your INDIGNATION, is that it is always you and Phayyde that argue how evil the U.S. has been in the region, and infact the world, thus causing all this hatred for us. AND THEN, act surprised and appalled at the idea that we keep some Iraqis awake for a couple of days. You really should research what the U.S. special forces recruits endure during hellweek.

All these strawmen, wtf is this a cornfield?

Abu Ghraib is what it is and no amount of your fumbling over the issue is going to help.

There is considerable work to be done to exit gracefully from Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the poor track record of the W Team, it's apparent that a change in leadership is called for.

Instead of rushing to label alternate views, demonizing your compatriot, you should focus on the issues and let the merits of each argument speak for themselves.

And it's "epitomy" and "hypocrisy".

I do think you have some good points, I'll come back later to say more bout that...

post number 16 was a double-post. I nuked it.
Also:
I don't despise GW personally as I haver never met him. That sounded like a harsh personal indictment of him and I don't mean it that way.
Phayyde: where I come from they call it square dancing. :p

what I, and the rest of the country know-full well, Phayyde, is that your segment of the population felt a change of leadership was called for the day AL Gore LOST the election in 2000. You are just using every little incident to justify that. And no use of rhetoric or hyperbole will change anything. In response to your unqualified statement; "Given the poor track record of the W Team,", I go, once again, to the facts.

A.)In the last 2.5 years, we have engaged and defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. A feat the Soviet Union-at it's height, was unable to do in almost 10 years of fighting. And we did it in 6 months.

B.) We have toppled the brutal regime of one of the most murderous dictators in world history, and are assisting in the formation of that countries first representive government.

C.) We waged both of these campains, having lost less than a thousand of our own soldiers. Soviet dead and missing in Afghanistan alone amounted to almost 15,000 troops, a modest percent of the 642,000 Soviets who served during the ten-year war. Far more telling were the 469,685 other casualties, fully 73 percent of the overall force, who were wounded or incapacitated by serious illness. Some 415,932 troops fell victim to disease, of which 115,308 suffered from infectious hepatitis and 31,080 from typhoid fever. The Soviets also lost 118 jets, 333 helicopters, 147 tanks, 1314 armored personnel carriers, 433 artillery pieces or mortars, 1138 communications or CP vehicles, 510 engineering vehicles, 11,369 trucks.

C.)Procecuted more scurrilous corporate criminals than ever before in our own countries history.

D.) We have successfully intercepted all would be terrorist attacks since September 11th. A feat by itself worth praise.

E.) Our own government broke the story of Abu Ghraib, investigated the "crimes", and is prosecuting the allegded criminals. Something that would have never happened under Clinton's watch.

Etc.....Etc..... Etc......

Golly Django! Do you really believe the shit u just posted?
A)WTF? The Afghan campaign (which I totally supported and still do, at least the hunt for Osama and the ousting of the Taliban)) is still underway and although we defeated the Taliban, should be considered a dismal failure or a least incomplete until Bin Laden is captured or killed and we have his fucking head. It's a known fact that we (US) supported Bin Laden and the Taliban against the Soviets making sure they were not going to be "defeated". And btw...The Soviets were on their fucking knees during that time and fell shortly afterwards. Certainly the Soviet Union was not at it's "height". It was in it's death throe's.

B)WTF? Okay...whatever.

c)great stats...who gives a shit and how are they pertinent?

c again)(?) ;p
Good grief man, the worst of these "scurrilous" fuckers has yet to stand trial and wasn't Cheney working for or somehow involved in Enron, Haliburton ...
We have merely fed token assholes to the dogs and let the rest go.

D) Now....are you saying that the Terror Report was right?
I thought you said it was flawed...


I'm losing touch w/reality...or some one is....

/transmission

You seem satisfied to sing your loyalist tributes perched on phantom laurels. Do not mistake it for analysis. Nobody else will.

When you eventually decide to hang up your apologist's robe and join your compatriots in a constructive and honest manner, we will embrace you.

Meanwhile, have you seen Cheney hot-steppin' all around the 911 commission report? That man has more moves than Michael Jackson.

Committee: There was no collaborative relationship.

Cheney: There was too a relationship! There were phone calls!

It's obvious this admin is fuxored man, even to an ever increasing # of republicans and non-partisans -

"Former U.S. Officials Say Bush Must Go
A group of 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers said Wednesday that President Bush should be voted out of office in November for damaging U.S. national security interests and America's standing in the international community.
Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Bill Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan; and retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq, and Crowe and Turner have endorsed Kerry.

Also included is Jack F. Matlock, who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained the post under the first President Bush, and William C. Harrop, the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel and four African countries.

Normally, former diplomats and military commanders avoid making political statements, especially in an election year. But last month 53 former diplomats accused the Bush administration of undermining U.S. credibility in the Middle East by its strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon."

Check this slashdot article:

Ashcroft: Making Data Public Would 'Crash System'

After numerous requests under the Freedom Of Information Act have been refused, Ashcroft actually says the following:

Implementing such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating.

Huummmmm...that's very interesting Phayyde. Oh, did you happen to catch that Bush has gained 7 points in the polls over Kerry in the last month? .....

I think Americans are so peaceloving and respectful that the true majority opinion of our sitting president will not be fully revealed until election day. The polls are not truth, though they sometimes point out interesting trends and factors.

Yeah and what's up with Kerry? What's his deal? He'll get a ton of votes because his last name ain't Bush. But besides that, what's his actual platform?

As long as he plans to educate the DOJ about rudimentary database technology, he'll have my vote. LOL

Kerry is just a dud put in intentionally not to threaten Hillaries bid in `08

He's here till Tuesday, folks, try the veal!

I heard thry the grapevine that "Farenheiht 911" is not showing in J-town, is this true? LOL - maybe I forgot why I moved away! Top grossing award winning "docuemntary"(with spin but plenty of FACTS), sold out all over the country (& in all 4 theaters showing it here since last week)- but not quite "appropriate" for jackson audiences ;)

the two showings my friends went to both got standing ovations - how often to you see that at a movie?
AND the interesting thing is the audiences were predominantly average seeming people in their 40's thru 60's, it's not a 'liberal commie only' type film but seems to resonate with the average joe who is sick of being lied to

We Jacksonians are too stupid to be allowed to watch movies without having some sort of censorship of critical thought.

Truth is, we're all just a buncha Jerry Clowers down here. Thank the Lawd in Hebb'm someone's doin' our thinkin' for us, Haaaw!

Django likes to try and characterize me as such a hippie commie pinko treasonist sometimes, it's good and reaffirming to see huge crowds of average americans with no particular 'liberal' axe to grind that are awakening to the insane political, military and corporate corruption that led us down this path to being terror targets

Farenhiet(?) 911 opens tomorrow at Parkway right here in good ol j'town. I guess it has something to do with profit and the fact it's doing so well across this this great country. Kudos to the average guy for taking interest. I love this country.

the bottom line is the dollars, lol. Hooray for (delayed) free speech / free market insanity regardless of political orientation
- the truth will prevail ...... eventually ;)

So have you guys seen the movie? My wife and I went Sunday. I'm shocked that so many Republicans have tried to prevent people from seeing it. Now there's a party that doesn't trust the public with their own judgement.

I know the Djangbot's got to have an opinion.

i'm probably gonna see it this week .... so was it damning enough to 'justify' all the attempts at censorship?

The attempts at censorship themselves reveal a much deeper weakness. The film can come nowhere close.

I'm expecting the Djangster to say that it 'emboldens the evildoers', or somesuch other nonsense.

ummm.....interesting

I could be wrong, what is your actual opinion of the flick?

My actual opinion is; Mr. Moore can say whatever he likes..until July 31st. I am not simple enough, however, to pay to hear him say it.

yo Django, What about "Roger and Me", Did you like that one - it came out in the ealry 90's i think - sheeit, i thought that was a hillarious and revealing look at the financial and social stratification of flint michigan, and middle america in general, awesome flick

I guess Django can't address the subject. LOL

I am glad that critical thought, peer review and dissenting opinion have not been extinguished in this country as Django and his controlling masters wish.

It restores my faith in our country and humanity in general.

The simplistic view that anyone not in lockstep with the sitting president offers comfort to America's enemies is an anathema to the American way itself.

As your cranium has reached maximum density, I will repeat: My actual opinion is; Mr. Moore can say whatever he likes..until July 31st. I am not simple enough, however, to pay to hear him say it.

The subject was addressed, and in no way did I suggest that he be shutup or "extenguished"-quite the opposite. I have grown bored with explaining the obvious to you.

Don't mean to come off like such a jerk. Trying too hard to be funny.

From here on out, man, I'm going to be less abrasive.

I hope you and yours had a great fourth, belatedly.

to corect Django's statement above, I believe that Mr. Moore can still continue to say whatever he likes even after July 31st ;) (until patriot act 5 passes and redefines any political dissent as 'terrorist sympathism' punishable by secret detainment and anal lightstick hi-jinx)

My statement about July 31st, is in regards to the recently upheld (supreme court) McCain / Feingold bill. This bill, which is law, prohibits the use of images or speech of candidates for national office within 30 days of any convention, primary, or general election. That date is July 31st. Micheal Moore, under that law has very few options to avoid being in violation of McCain / Feingold.

Phayyde; Don't worry about it. Our fourth was good, I hope yours was as well.

Aside from the whole F911 deal, this bill makes me curious. I'll start with the obvious and my question just comes naturally.

In this country, we rely upon an educated populace to make rational election choices based upon factual data (which includes images and speech of course).

Why would anyone try to limit the information available to the public right before an election? I'm not presuming that the bill is wrong. I'm trying to understand it.

I believe the purpose of this is to stop orginazations on both sides of the fence from avoiding contribution limits (soft money) by making commercials for a particular candidate or party, and disguising it as a documentary or other such idiocy. And, this fact has been evidenced by Micheal Moore backing off the documentary claim by first changing the description to "dramatization", and most recently "satire".

To address this, I need only point out that our election system-as set up by the founding fathers- intentionally DOES NOT rely on the populace at all. Thus, the electoral college. The president is never, and has never been, elected by poplular vote. And, constitutionally, the electoral college from every state is empowered to vote contradictary to the popular vote in that state. Many parts of the constitution-with regard to national elections have been changed or simply ignored -I'll site examples if you wish- this particular facet hawever, as it is so integral to our system, has withstood many challenges.

The Senate release excerts from it's investigation in to the war on Iraq. The Senate panel admitted that The President based his decision on faulty intelligence, as did the Congess. And, they also stated that the administration never pressured the intelligence community to change or tailor their findings to support a decision to go to war. despite popular "Hollywood" contention.

Our nation’s founding leaders believed that the success of American democracy depended on the development of an educated citizenry that would vote wisely, protect its rights and freedoms, rout out political corruption, and keep the nation secure from internal and external threats to democracy.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

A people who mean to be their own
Governors must arm themselves with the
power which knowledge gives. I think by far
the most important bill in our whole code is
that for the diffusion of knowledge among
the people. No other sure foundation can be
devised for the preservation of freedom and
happiness. Preach my dear sir, a
crusade against ignorance; establish and
improve the law for education of the common
people.

The president is never, and has never been, elected by popular vote.

Sure. That's called an "Escape Goat".

A.)Contrary to your statement, we are not a democracy, we are infact, a representative republic. There is a VERY big difference.

But, your ignorance only BEGINS there.

B.)Thomas Jefferson DID believe that an educated populace was the greatest defence of freedom. However, being pragmatists, AS WELL AS, idealists, they created the electoral college, which you apparently did not realize actually elected the president. The electoral college is SUPPOSED to be comprised of EDUCATED citizens of good standing. Originally, they had to be landowners. But, if you are interested in actually learning how the election process works, you can go here for an "electoral college for dummies" type explaination.www.fec.gov

C.) I never even IMPLIED that the founding fathers did not VALUE an educated populace, I said that they - in their wisdom - did not RELY on an educated populace. And they did not, hence, the electoral college.

I should start charging you a tutor fee

Who are you trying to impress with that offtopic high-school curriculum material?

I'm asking you about McCain/Feingold, campaign finance reform and Fahrenheit 9/11. The electoral college clearly has nothing to do with it.

Look, if you don't know, just say so.

I answered your question about Mcain/Feingold, you apparently didn't read the post. In addition to that, I made a second post to address your associated statement about an educated populace, I assume to imply that M/F somehow prevents that in THIS case. So, here is my post AGAIN:


I believe the purpose of this is to stop orginazations on both sides of the fence from avoiding contribution limits (soft money) by making commercials for a particular candidate or party, and disguising it as a documentary or other such idiocy. And, this fact has been evidenced by Micheal Moore backing off the documentary claim by first changing the description to "dramatization", and most recently "satire".

F911 is not part of a campaign at all. It's not an ad. It's not affiliated with the democrats. In fact, Moore totally bashes the dems. F911 is satire and it is a documentary and it contains dramatizations. I love watching your head spin.

Apparently, you don't feel like you need to do any research before committing to your party line. You just happily vomit back any random opinion you are fed.

You are a political bulemic. LOL

I just wanted to be certain you were desperate enough to buy that crap before responding. Trying to shoehorn F911 under McCain Feingold is pure desperation. LOL

I dunno, Django - I promise not to call you a neo-con if you promise to refrain from calling me a democrat.
I am voting democratic this election because I feel Bush is incompetent, not because I am a democrat or republican.
I'm a Technocratic Transhumanist if you must call it something - and this election the dems are more in that direction. However both arties make me sick. Ideally I'd like to see a total dismemberment of the 2 party system (aka. Puppet A and Puppet B) so there is an 'actual' diversity of viewpoints and possible solutions instead of the same of tired ass shit we get from the reps and dems, it's no different than the friggin BurgerKing commercial advertising the "NEW & Better" whopper for the last 25 years. Same shitty burger but re-packaged with new BS over & over & over & over ......

Django doesn't care what you vote. He doesn't even care what HE votes. According to Django's confused misinterpretation of the only high school lecture he remembers, the voice of the people is utterly irrelevant.

Don't tell him he's wrong though, because that's treason. LOL

I think we had civics class together at Chastain, lol, (mrs. Burkett & then the way-cool Mr. Lewis) maybe we both got something different out of it. maybe we just have very different ideas on how to achieve the same thing.
hopefully Django would like to eventually see peace, stability, prosperity, "freedom", a clean ecology and co-operativeness become a reality for the whole planet, & without it having to be "enforced" by the crude 20th century tactics of economic(life support) subjigation and military force(organized killing)

Now that was a cool teacher. I recall him tripping one day on Steely Dan before class proper. I didn't really know much about SD at the time, but Mr. Lewis was commenting on how lots of people weren't into them, but how those dudes were really getting down. Too bad the class wasn't on Steely Dan. LOL! I could have learned something important that day. Sentimental revere over now, back to the POLI thrashing... ;)

Phayyde this is real simple, even for a simpleton. The law states, that no image or speech of any candidate for national office may be used in advertisement or "documentary", among others, 30 days before a convention, primary, or general election. That's the law DIPSHIT. If you don't like it, blame McCain/Feingold, the congress that past it, and the supreme court that affirmed it.

Secondly, if you are going to argue that the electoral college doesn't elect the president, you are an even bigger dipshit than I give you credit for. Furthermore, if you can't recognize that more people can participate in the election process (at any level) than was originally set forth in the constitution, you are a dillusional dipshit. And if you would get off your lazy rhetoric puking ass, and actually read some historical data, such as the FEDERALIST PAPERS - though I can only assume you know what they are - you would understand that the "framers of the constitution" only wanted people with a fucking clue holding the reigns of their newly formed government. Which is exactly why this nation was setup as a representative republic, and not a pure democracy.

Yep, your monotonous recitation of facts about the electoral college is still irrelevant.

I haven't read where the bill says it applies to cinema. Advertisements, yes. Independently owned films? It might be there, I just haven't found it yet. Have you?

We can't outlaw satire. Come on, Django, our nation, if any, really could use satire throughout all our elections.

Just cranking yer chain last post, heh. :)

Look, since you don't seem to get it, I don't care about Micheal Moore (specifically). The M/F law, in it's intent, is to prevent people on both sides of the political fence from circumventing election laws. I say again, there can be no exceptions, that is how "loop-holes" are created. I will guarantee you that if F/911 slips through this proverbial crack, the next national elections will be proceeded by a barrage of "documentaries" designed to sway public opinion towards that of it's creator. If a well educated populace is what you are truly after, you couldn't possibly wish that same populace to be pelted with a myriad of self-spun, unqualified, only mildly scrutinized, bombs of dis-information. through which that populace must sift only months before they vote. Candidates themselves can not...would not dare..make such wild claims as these "private films" may, for they would have to answer for them. However, a Micheal Moore, for instance, can say whatever he likes and if some of it sticks, he's won a battle for his agenda.

LOL it takes you one hundred and seventy words to say what I can phrase in four: You don't know either.

McCain Feingold is about soft money. F911 is utterly irrelevant to the core McCain Feingold legislation. So here we are again at the bottom of yet another issue you haven't thought through.

Your entire position is now deperately pro federal control of privately owned free speech in a free market all because of some Moore film. Who's the liberal now? Your knees are kerking so hard it looks like your goosestepping.

First-though I know you can't-define soft money.
Secondly, the Federal Election Commission gets to determine whether or not F/911 breeches McCain/Feingold, not me or you. And, the preliminary findings to this point indicate that it does. I've very clearly stated why this is the case, but, if you are incapable of understanding English, I suggest that you take some remedial courses at Hinds, or somewhere else....Everytime I post a response to you, I feel as though I stutter having to repeat things 3 and 4 times. And, I will repeat one more time, I have never, nor will I ever side-step...nor are my knees shaking because of anything that you or your "people" think or say. Doing so would require that I care one way or another what your opinions about me or MY opinions might be.

Your solicitation for bizarre anal activity might be better 'received' elsewhere.

I don't need to thoroughly define soft money to prove that F911 isn't soft money. Just a basic definition will do.

Since 1907, it has been illegal for corporations to spend money in connection with federal elections.

Since 1947, it has been illegal for labor unions to spend money in connection with federal elections. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party, for the purpose of influencing a federal election. Soft money is money which violates these rules. It is the corporate donations, the union tributions and the large -- $100,000, $250,000 or even $1 million - contributions given by wealthy individuals to the political parties.

maybe Mutually Assured Destruction is actually the only good answer. We outta just let the assholes destroy this whole planet, instantly negating ALL of the silly arguments we are having with the burning TRUTH of Nuclear Fire.
then who's a commie, republican, democrat or taliban? NOBODY! LOL! Nothing left to argue about ....

Actually MAD only applies when there are two near equals threatening one another with WMDs. Today, the US is the worlds lonely Superpower.

So, since the "Mutual" part no longer applies, I guess our policy is just "Assured Destruction". LOL


Storytime.

I met a man once - this was just after 9/11 when a bunch of us worried adults gathered at a friends house for conversation/support/education. This man was well versed in ME politics and economics - it had been his life's work.

He knew us all - that was odd. He is related to our close friends though they had never mentioned him. And he knew us by name. This old guy and his wife. We've never seen them since.

But he spoke to us for a couple of hours. He said we live in a dream here in the US. Of course, he took our newbie questions with grace and patience. There was so much to say, so much ground to cover. What follows is just a smidgin of one point he made.

He said we live in a dream. We fly around in SUVs and work with invisible information and buy everything on credit and use the internet. We take vacations and throw away heaping plates of food after each meal and use a car to drive two blocks. We build our world around our experiences. Since our experiences are stable, so our world seems. But that's not the reality.

The rest of the world he said, is not like this at all. The rest of the world, mostly, is dirt poor. There is a terribly wide gulf between the avg yuppie family and the average human.

The average human uses a public toilet for life. The average human doesn't know where tomorrows food will come from. The avg human cannot read. (forget writing) There are so many differences he pointed out - it was shocking if you haven't spent much time thinking about it. I thought I had. It's easy to think you have.

Can't read or write, meals uncertain, shitting in the streets. That's the average human.

I'm not talking about Robin Hood here or anyone owing anything to anybody. None of that liberal "social responsibility" that frightens Django. I am merely describing a system as it was explained to me by someone many (liberals and conservatives alike) consider to be a knowledgeable, unbiased source.

So anyway, there are these differences that arise from this huge economic gulf. The system (the world economy) wants to be stable. Like any system, it tries to balance itself with entropy. There are huge forces pushing to take from you and give to them. His job, best he described it, was to understand some of those forces and counteract others.

I asked him how I could help: what could I do to learn more about this gulf. He smiled and cut right through my naive BS. He said: You don't need to go to the ME to learn more about the gulf. It's already in your backyard. Someone is starving to death less than five miles from us right now.

There are many reactions one can have to all of this. Fear, it occurs to me, is not the most productive among them.

Your "definition" of soft money very accurately described HARD money. A more brief and to-the-point definition of "hard money" would be: A direct contribution by individuals or parties to political candidates and parties.

A reasonable definition of SOFT money is: money used to advance a particular political campaign in such a manner as to skirt the legal limits on how much money individuals or organizations are allowed to contribute to political campaigns (termed hard money). Popular soft money techniques include paying for thinly veiled advertising that does not name a specific candidate, but focuses so narrowly on particular issues tied to a given campaign that it is obvious which candidate the advertisement is targeted at and which candidate the ad supports. Other common examples of soft money use would be, issue advertising, voter registration and Get-Out-the-Vote (GOTV), as well as administrative and overhead costs and party-building activities.

In regard to your old man story, your pal was MOSTLY right. I have stated in previous posts, that even the closest westernized nations, such as the U.K., have a much lower standard of living than we do here. I have been there several times, I speak from first hand knowledge. The difference between me, and you liberals is, that I don't blame OUR people for that situation, nor do I wish to penalize them for it. As an employer, I deal with people everyday that ask for work, I offer them work, and they don't show up TO work. However, every Friday those same people show up with their hand out, asking for a loan because they are "starving to death". I actually send other employees to these peoples homes to pick them up for work, and they simply won't answer the door. In many cases, these people can be found through-out the work week, saddled up to the bar, in their favorite watering hole. One person that I fired, smoked so much cocaine, that she had to have emergency open-heart surgery by the time she was 25. As-a-result of her mis-spent youth, we tax payers fund her ON-GOING "activities" to the tune of $1,200 a month in dis-ability payments because of her "heart trouble". Mine is 1 company, in 1 town, in this vast nation. And, I deal with scores of these people every week. I would challenge you to ask any other employer about this situation. I would bet they have the same complaints. You liberals, would have the rest of us "humans" - through income redistribution - get up everyday, work our asses off, to fund this type of SHIITTT!!! The Liberal establishment, I believe, has come to understand that not everyone is going to succeed financially in this life - regardless of the type and amount of assistance given, therefore, the only answer is to lower everyone else in order to achieve some kind of socio-economic "equilibrium". This has already been accomplished in our public schools to great success. In the 1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan argued that Federal involvement in our public schools would inevitably lead this catostrophic result, because of this very issue. The only question on this issue I have is, whether the Liberals actually believe that this is the right course, or they simply realize it will buy them a particular section of the population.

Djang, your kids old enough to do a Senators game? Mine are good for like, four innings. We should meet up and stake out a territory in Smith-Wills one of these summer nights. Arrive at the bottom of the 5th, finish out the game and watch the fireworks display afterwards.

We're going, just haven't picked the night. I'm thinking Thu July 22. Dollar beverage night.

I happen to have a very fond place in my (ahem) heart for cocaine. So does your President...and his dad...and Dick Cheney. Hell, I quit that shit years ago but thats no reason to bad mouth it.

Wait....what were you guys talking about?
Fuck... Grey Goose is runnin all around my brain.

disregard former spewage.

/transmission

P.S.
I love you guys...all you motherfuckers. I really do.

Love is all that matters.

YO Django (& Phayyde),
Why not drop the labeling - ie. "the trouble with you liberals" , etc, etc
The way i'm hearing it Django, you feel there are 2 types of people in the world, those who think like you do - and everybody else. Those who think as you do are 'right' and everyone else is potentially an enemy to your way of life.
This is BS, if everyone was a republican things would be just as fucked as if everyone was a liberal, neocon, or whatever. The enemy is not people, the enemy is not any certain group, culture, drug or ideology.
The enemy is human greed, fear, habit, reactionary thought and neophobia. The Enemy is an intimate part of the self and is within all of us.

A cup of virtual coffee for anyone who can tell me where the words conservative, liberal, left and right come from.

Not looking for definitions, so forget http://m-w.com . I'm looking for origins with respect to our political system.

I'm especially interested to see if Django knows who built those ol' reliable political crutches.
But I'll hook up the coffee for anyone with the right answer cuz I'm the Coffee Pimp.

Why are liberals left while conservatives are right? Where does all that come from and does it even make any sense?

The left and right terms come from the political seating arrangements! No shit.

Um, here's a link I just found...

... who won the coffee for kersplatt stories?

Therm wins the good. I would've also taken "France".

Watchu think bout that, Django? Shall we eat cake now?

PsiPhi, you took the honor with that very first story, jumping out that 2nd story window was very good.

Thermit with the similar, yet unique hospital fall story is up there too.

Man, I'm glad you people live in another city. LOL

Psi....I'm not silly enough to believe that there are only 2 types of people in this world. However, as political discussions go, there are two major factions here. Each of those two factions have agenda's, beliefs, and ideologies. Those are the items I am addressing when I refer to "you liberals".

Phayyde: The senators game sounds cool...I appreciate the offer. I'm not sure however, when I might get to go....my wife (Amy) is 4&1/2 months pregnant, and usually doesn't make it past 8:30 or 9
before she's done.

Now, can anyone tell me where the term "Redneck" originated?

Wow Django, all the best for your wife.

Redneck describes the sun damaged skin on the back of the neck of an experienced farmworker.

I have three. What a trip.

First...thanks for the congrats.

In 1911 James K. Vardaman ran again for the US Senate and Theodore Bilbo ran for the office of lieutenant-governor of the state of Mississippi. Theodore Bilbo grew up and lived in Poplarville, not far from Pike County. He was an extremely popular Baptist preacher and had a habit of wearing a RED NECKTIE. During the election campaign, Bilbo and Vardaman's supporters began wearing RED NECKTIES and driving ox wagons to rallies. They had been called "RED-NECKS" and "cattle" by the regular Democrats and they adopted the intended slurs as their own idea. Bilbo and Vardaman campaigned together and the election attracted wide interest among the farmers. When Bilbo spoke in McComb in May, 1910, an enthusiastic crowd of 4,000 chanted over and over again, "We are the low-brows, we are the RED-NECKS, rah for Vardaman." Many leading Pike County politicians promised to back Bilbo for governor if he would run. The hostile Democratic press reported that they were thoroughly "Bilboed". In 1911 both Vardaman and Bilbo won by large majorities in the largest vote ever cast in Mississippi. They were the heroes of the common people and especially of those of southern Mississippi.

Heh nice story, dude. Actually the term is Scottish.

REDNECK

The origins of this term are Scottish and refer to supporters of the National Covenant and The Solemn League and Covenant, or "Covenanters", largely Lowland Presbyterians, many of whom would flee Scotland for Ulster (Northern Ireland) during persecutions by the British Crown. The Covenanters of 1638 and 1641 signed the documents that stated that Scotland desired the Presbyterian form of church government and would not accept the Church of England as its official state church.

Many Covenanters signed in their own blood and wore red pieces of cloth around their necks as distinctive insignia; hence the term "Red neck", which became slang for a Scottish dissenter.

Since many Ulster-Scottish settlers in America (especially the South) were Presbyterian, the term was applied to them, and then, later, their Southern descendants. One of the earliest examples of its use comes from 1830, when an author noted that "red-neck" was a "name bestowed upon the Presbyterians." It makes you wonder if the originators of the ever-present "redneck" joke are aware of the term’s origins?

Red Necks: a name bestowed upon the Presbyterians in Fayetteville. ... it could be a reference to sunburned necks caused by working in the fields all day.

Red Neck: Some Peculiarities of Speech in Mississippi. A name applied by the better class of people to the poorer inhabitants of the rural districts.

Redneck, n., An uncouth countryman. ‘The hill-billies came from the hills, and the rednecks from the swamps.’

There are many historical rederences to some (greatly varied) members of groups or "sects" being termed red-necks for various reasons.

Whatever the case, the more modern term redneck has evolved into the more Southern, rural, white member of the laboring class and a disparaging reference to the dialect. Often called Slack jawed or a Yokel, the person often is associated with non-traditional behavior and opinions that may be outdated or modifications to more traditional language or terms.

This use of the term red-neck is the most closely related to that used today, and was coined during the Vardaman - Bilbo era in Mississippi politics to denote their supporters.

The Oxford English Dictionary reference predates your Bilbo Vardaman fiction by decades! It even mentions Mississippi.

You have been debunked.

can't you boys play nice?

Ok Phayyde, live in ignorance....not my problem..I am no longer giving out free tutoring to ya'. But, I will suggest that you do more in depth research.

Django has been debunked. But he's so ashamed at his own gullibility, he cannot admit that the OED exists. Or that 1830 occurred before 1911. What a wierd guy. LOL

I mean 'wierd' in a good way. heheheh, wierdo.

I gotta side with Phayyde on this one - redneck is a much older term already in wide use earlier than 1910, and probably owes little to the Bilbo Vardaman event.
However'n, if'n yu want's ta be knowed as dis' blog's "Authoritar" on Redneck origins, thought and behavior, be our guest ;) just do better homework, lol.

David Kay: Bush, Blair should have known intelligence didn't show Iraqi threat
By Beth Gardiner, Associated Press, 7/18/2004 15:12

LONDON (AP) President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should have realized before going to war that intelligence on Iraqi weapons was weak and did not indicate Saddam Hussein posed a danger to the West, America's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq said Sunday.

David Kay resigned from the CIA in January and his conclusion then that Iraq did not have stockpiles of forbidden weapons caused serious problems for both Bush and Blair, undercutting their main justification for war.

He told Britain's ITV network that Bush and Blair ''should have been able to tell before the war that the evidence did not exist for drawing the conclusion that Iraq presented a clear, present and imminent threat on the basis of existing weapons of mass destruction.''

''That was not something that required a war,'' he said.

He said the leaders may not have been sufficiently critical of intelligence on Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

''WMD was only one and I think in their mind, not really the most important one,'' he said. ''And so the doubts about the evidence on weapons of mass destruction was not as serious to them as it seemed to be to the rest of the world.''

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'

The Baathist regime was responsible for massive human rights abuses and murder on a large scale - not least in well-documented campaigns including the gassing of Halabja, the al-Anfal campaign against Kurdish villages and the brutal repression of the Shia uprising - but serious questions are now emerging about the scale of Saddam Hussein's murders.

It comes amid inflation from an estimate by Human Rights Watch in May 2003 of 290,000 'missing' to the latest claims by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, that one million are missing.

At the heart of the questions are the numbers so far identified in Iraq's graves. Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing, according to the best estimates that The Observer has been able to obtain, around 5,000 bodies. Forensic examination of grave sites has been hampered by lack of security in Iraq, amid widespread complaints by human rights organisations that until recently the graves have not been secured and protected.

And while few have any doubts that Saddam's regime was responsible for serious crimes against humanity, the exact scale of those crimes has become increasingly politicised in both Washington and London as it has become clearer that the case against Iraq for retention of weapons of mass destruction has faded.

“I always remember two groups of students,” Tsurumi said then, according to published reports. “One is the really good students, not only intelligent, but with leadership qualities, courage. The other is the total opposite, unfortunately to which George belonged.”

Tsurumi said he particularly recalls Bush’s right-wing extremism at the time, which he said was reflected in off-hand comments equating the New Deal of the 1930s with socialism and the corporation-regulating Securities and Exchange Commission with “an enemy of capitalism.”

“I vividly remember that he made a comment saying that people are poor because they’re lazy,” Tsurumi said.

http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/colloquium/20040520_tsurumi_radio/tsurumi04520.wvx

http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/colloquium/20040520_tsurumi_radio/tsurumi_radio.ram

Anyone who thinks the New Deal was Socialist misunderstands US History, the Marxist forms of gov't and more fundamentally, the entire premise of critical analysis, upon which our educations are based.

If large gov't and federal centrism of power are the sole criteria for Socialism, then Bush is Stalin.

1.) Again[repeat], yea....there ARE many definitions of the term "red-neck" that pre-date the usage we are all sooo familiar with. However, as I THAUGHT I made clear, the usage of the term that represents a class of people, either backards in their thinking..i.e. out of date, or ignorant in their behavior, was first coined by the opponents of Bilboe/Vardaman (who like Bilboe & Vardaman, were democrats). After their opponents adopted this insult during the campaign, B/V actually acted like they had started the whole deal, which spun the would-be insult right out from under their opponents. We (Psi & I) first learned this in 7th grade Ms. history, apparently he has forgotten. And, you apparently NEVER learned it Phayyde. Bilboe is also the governor that had the Gold eagle installed on the Capital(if I am not mistaken).

2.)David Kay has had his 15 mins. of fame, he has been thoroughly discredited......move on.

3.)If the concept of socialism had existed in Jefferson's day, he probably would have thaught the "New Deal" was socialist, and he DEFINATELY would have faught it tooth and nail. Which is what he did when James Madison proposed a centalized, national banking system. Unfortunately, he lost. Never-the-less, the core beliefs of Thomas Jefferson (considered to be the most brilliant of the "Founding Fathers") were in complete opposition to the populace relying on government doing FOR them what they could, and should do for THEMSELVES. I personally would not call the "New Deal" socialist, but maybe socialist-lite.

4.)Tsurumi, whomever he is, obviously would have a hostile oppinion of Bush. This is clearly evidenced by his apparent use of the term "right-wing", which is only used by people who are opposed to the values of people they deem to be "right-wing".

5.)Micheal Moore/Linda Ronstadt: Yay!!! for Las Vegas!!! Hip,Hip, Hooray!! for Las Vegas! Guess the "silent majority" ain't always so silent! Hooray for Las Vegas!!!!!!

Why come your name's on my post? Hehehe....I wonder if anyone will believe you could actually be THAT in-the-know?

regardless of party affiliation - they are all corrupt, lol .....

The AP reports that the Justice Department is investigating Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, who has admitted to removing classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from a secure reading room during preparations for the 9/11 commission hearings.

Watch this movie!!

http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/this_land_af

Sandy Berger was apparently seen stuffing documents into his pants, coat and socks!!
The staff at the National archives noticed documents missing after Berger had reviewed those documents. They contacted Bill Clintons' attorney about it, in an attempt to keep it quiet. Berger showed up to return the documents, only, the documents he returned were not the documents the archive staff had noticed were missing. So, they marked other documents Berger had been interested in, and watched as he pilfered those. At that point, they notified the FBI.

what a dumbass, he knows better - so i wonder if he was covering for clinton, removing self-incriminating stuff, stuff that would be embarassing but not relevant to terror or just why he would do such a thing. Also the timing of the 'leaked' story is very suspect - he's been under investigation for a year but 2 days before the release of the 911 comission report this gets out, lol

The speculation about the motive is; the documents he took were all different versions of the same after-action report regarding the terrorist that was captured crossing the border from Canada via Washington State. Apparently, this after-action report was a scathing criticism of the Clinton administrations anti-terrorism policies. Claiming the capture of the would-be terrorist was nothing more than dumb-luck. However, I can't imagine that he could be stupid enough to believe that he could get all copies. Of course, Slick-Willie retains maximum deniability.....regardless;)

P.S. I believe that after-action report was written by none-other than Richard Clark.

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. -- John Atkins isn't the sort of person one would expect to find crowding into the Cameo Theatre here to see Michael Moore's " Fahrenheit 9/11."

The 26-year-old U.S. Army machine gunner from Fort Bragg voted for President Bush. A graduate of the University of Colorado-Boulder, he enlisted last year "to serve my country" and expects to go to Iraq later in 2004.

Every day since "Fahrenheit 9/11" opened here more than two weeks ago, military men and women have swarmed to the 125-seat Cameo. "Everyone thinks the military is so staunchly Republican," says Staff Sgt. Brandon Leetch, a military-intelligence specialist who spent time in Afghanistan. "What this shows," he says, looking around the theater before the movie, "is that we're not all the same."

Most viewers are coming from Fort Bragg, just up the road. But often a few Marines from Camp Lejeune, about two hours away, join them. The night Spec. Atkins attended, three soldiers arrived from South Carolina well after the 7:30 show had, as usual, sold out. The ticket seller set up chairs in an aisle.


The U.S. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, which distributes films at 164 theaters on bases around the world, is trying to book "Fahrenheit 9/11 ," spokesman Judd Anstey says.

"Our policy is that if a film is popular in the U.S. and we can get our hands on a print, we'll show it," he says.

Currently, all prints are in commercial theaters. He says it took about a month to get another recent surprise hit, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

August 2, 2004 issue
Copyright © 2004 The American Conservative

"How to Lose the War on Terror"

.... funny how as an viewer from the sidelines I came to many of the same general conclusions as the CIA's Bin Laden expert. Way before the Iraq war even started, lol
-psi

I don't plan on doing a lot of research into this, but I do have a couple of comments having read this interview.

A.) I don't buy into anonymous declarations. If I can't confirm the source, I don't believe it.

B.)In the event that this "Anonymous" is who and what he/she says, I find it extraordinary that YOU would give ANY credibility to someone from an orginazation you have been lambasting as incompetents, and has admittedly made HUGE intelligence and tactical blunders recently.

C.)I would call the fact that we have boots on the ground in these islamo-fascist swines' three most prized locations....a damn good start. And, maybe we will just have to smoke `em all.

So edgy. In an extremist, nutcase sort of way. "Smoke 'em all"? LOL Care to clarify?

A) is why the 9/11 attacks weren't foiled, BTW.

I tend to agree on points 'a' and 'b' but as far as 'c' goes I believe we are only making things worse for ourselves. Let the idiots fuck each other up all they want. Why do we have jump in the middle of a fight we'll never win nor benefit from?

Don't answer that...it was a rhetorical question :-)

a) I don't buy into 'totally' anonymous declarations, but most journalists (if they have any conscience) don't print stuff like that wthout having seen valid credentials and/or confirmation of the persons position.

b) I don't recall having lambasted the CIA too much, i'm mostly lambasting the Bush admin for "cherrypicking" the weak intelligence used to justify characterizing Iraq as an 'urgent threat' to american national security - when in truth they were in the process of inspections and Hussein was not an 'urgent' threat to us, his neighbors or his own people(FAR more have died as a direct result of this invasion than he would have killed in a year)

c) There is no way to smoke 'em all dude .... that's some cowboy shit better suited to centuries past. That is exactly the kind of crude thinking and talk that makes "them" grow faster and more prevelant. You are fueling the fire with such thoughts. Haven't you learned yet that hate and fear breeds hate and fear?

We could have turned the all that sand into glass with thermonuclear weapons. Of course, I don't think the UN woulda been too keen on that idea either.

How's that Phayyde? Did I manage an 'extremist nutcase' rating? Come on!

A.) All of you shuld go do some research on a firm called "Executive Outcomes". This private military firm (now defunct thanks to U.N. sanctions) had 0 problems shutting down the mostly islamic insurgents that plagued Africa (including Rowanda, and Sierra-Leone) through-out the nineties. It wasn't until the U.N. and the other pussy-whipped N.A.T.O "powers" got involved that the situation got out of control. Of course, once things got hot, the U.N. cut and ran....just like always. By-the-way, did I mention that executive outcomes (Rowanda) routed an army of more than 10,000 with only about 185 men, at an extrapolated cost of about $20,000,000 per anum? And then the U.N. stepped in, and in three weeks an estimated 800,000 men, women, and children were slaughtered. This great service the U.N. provided cost about $500,000,000 per anum. So, the moral is, you can whip their ass, if you don't listen to all the pussies in the world that think you're being to meeaaannnn when you do it.

B.)The recent congressional investigation found that Bush had not "cheery-picked" intelligence, nor in any way misled the American people or congress. Furthermore, The Congress also openly admitted to have had the same intelligence available to The President when making their decision to declare war. Furthermore still, when asked after the investigations findings were released, only 7 of those who voted to declare war on Iraq said they would vote differently today(John Kerry nor Hillary Clinton were of that seven). Which, is not enough (by a longshot) to change the outcome.

C.)I find it amusing that the Democrats' candidate for this election's only apparent position is that he is not George Bush.

What Follows Is my summerizing of Kerry's acceptance speech:

Fellow Americans, I am proudly standing here to humbly see.
I assure you, and I mean it- Now, who says I don't speak out as plain as day?
And, fellow Americans, I'm for progress and the flag- long may it fly.
I'm a poor boy, come to greatness. So, it follows that I cannot tell a lie.

Now my good friends, it behooves me to be solemn and declare,
I'm for goodness and for profit and for living clean and saying daily prayer.
And now, my good friends, you can sleep nights, I'll continue to stand tall.
You can trust me, for I promise, I shall keep a watchful eye upon you all...and I'm not George Bush

he ain't no differrnt'n Bush...fuckin assholes ;)

Django has no clue what Kerry is saying because Djang's ears are stopped up with dried bile.

Kerry said some great things last night.

"I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."

Kerry said that. And it made me think:

I prefer a leader who hasn't written off the majority of his people as "going to hell" because they aren't Born Again Baptists.

I prefer a leader who doesn't try to speak for God.

I prefer a leader who won't involve us in a Holy War on the other side of the planet against the WRONG COUNTRY for NO BENEFIT.

Kerry is WAY different than Bush. I know that now.

... im sure they have them for republicans too, lol

"give bush the finger" and other fine political protest underclothing

You're simple minded.....

He said exactly what you wanted to hear..and you baught it.
He used every political cliche' there is despite the fact that everything he said contradicted his voting record as U.S. senator. Every political analyst covering the speech that I heard agreed on one thing. They agreed that the speech was a strategically crafted speech designed to avoid a clear stance on any important issue. If he took a stance that his voting record would reflect, he could very well lose those moderate undecided voters he's going after, but if he took a conservative stance the republicans would nail him to the wall on his voting record. So, he gave you alot of "When I was in the vietnam" (for 4 1/2 months) and stars and stripes blabber. Yet, the only position he took was; I won't do anything George Bush has done, or I will do it better. Infact, he really didn't SAY what he would do, he just kept saying "I won't do" this or that. But, hey I wouldn't expect other than you buying yet another poll driven, Madison Avenue marketeer crafted, Jelly-fish. The unfortunate thing is, he's not even as clever as Bill Clinton, but he's all you've got.

Without having watched his speech, having only read the one-sided, extreme rightwing pundits, you now feel confident enough in your command of Kerry's platform to voice your predictably shrill and boisterous little opinion.

You're a parrot with a keyboard.

And tell your monkey to give me back my god damned 445 billion dollars.

Try again twig-boy. I watched the WHOLE whithering thing...live. Every word. I haven't READ one blurb of that ridiculous garbage. I LISTENED to it. Because, unlike YOU, I like to actually KNOW what the FUCK I'm talking about. So, why don't you go out get yourself one of those "I had an abortion" t-shirts your party is soooo proud of, smoke some refer, and get hitched to some Homo named Danny.

ok...that was fuckin funny...

at this point a cannidates voting record is of little use in determining their stance on issues - BECAUSE there is all sorts of unrelated shit attached to bills. until there is some kind of law to keep appropriations bills "on topic" you can't tell if a person was voting FOR or Against the bill OR something tucked into the bill.

So, by that last statement are you saying that you Django are a Born-Again, HempHating Homophobe?
no abortions allowed - we need more SOLDIERS! (heterosexual ones)

(AP)MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- Iraqis visiting on a State Department sponsored civil rights tour were barred from city hall in Memphis Tn, after the city council chairman said it was too dangerous to let them in.

One most certainly can determine a candidates stance on issues by his voting record. If we were discussing the rare, off stance vote, the argument could be made that perhaps the "Pork-Barrel" additions to bills may be the cause. However, Kerry has become known(even by democrats)as one of the MOST liberal people serving in the senate. And, his voting record reflects that. You would not know that based on his speech, though. His obvious pandering(use of his 4 1/2 month total "war experience"), combined with his complete avoidence of the subject of his voting record, was simply dopey - for lack of a better word. I found it humerous, that although he has served the last 20 years on the U.S. Senate, he dedicated one entire sentence to that fact. Where as, though he only served in Vietnam for 4 1/2 months, there was over 10 minutes worth of references to that "service".

I have never been fond of the term "Born Again". I am exactly as I was born. Just Older and wiser.

Smoke all the weed ya' want pal, doesn't hurt me.

I am not even the slightest bit AFRAID of homos, I simply am tired of having to deal with their COLLECTIVE agenda, to force the non-homos to say how they choose to live is not only OK, but good.

If you are telling me that a woman who gets pregnant from voluntary sexual activity, chooses to use abortion as a birth control method rather than taking a pill or using a rubber, is something to print a t-shirt about and advertise, YOU need your head removed from your anus. In 1999, in San Fransisco, the number of abortions performed outnumbered live births. A very high percentage of those women had had multple previous abortions(3 or more). Over 3/4 of them had had more than one performed. The number of abortions performed as the result of immenant health concerns for the mother or child combined with those performed as the result of pregnancy due to rape and/or incest is less than 7% percent of the total performed each year. Apparently, though, some people(the vast majority of which are democrats) flippantly declare that their concocted right to fuck irresponsibly outways the preciousness of life itself. The democratic party has become (in the last 25 years) populated with spoiled, self-centered, irresponsible hedonites, who only care about what THEY want-right now. I don't buy into it.

I know a few women who have had abortions, and for all of them it was the most painful and difficult decision of their lives. Not something to be all happy about - and something that changed their perspecrtive and habits regarding unprotected casual sex.
however all of them are glad for the right to make that choice - although not celebrating the act itself.
Many people are pro-choice (letting the individual decide if they are in a good financial position, health state and mentally ready to support an unplanned child)
very few are "pro-abortion" (celebrating the actual act of terminating a pregnancy)
Would you rather see an irresponsible crack-head mom with no job skills pop another unattended and probably brain-damaged baby?

Abortion is unfortunately one way of avoiding an increase in the social problems and costs that come with uneducated, unattended and often unloved children - who are more likely to grow up with behavioral & metal problems, and ultimately be a burden on society.

This is the fault of selfishly motivated and unthinking adults and teenagers - nobody is advocating abortion as a replacement for prophylactic or chemical birth control.

Abortion is unfortunate, but i think the women who do it go thru more emotional pain than you realize, but until people are more responsible it should be an option

If it's such a painful decision for so many women, explain to me the San Fransisco statistics I gave in my previous post, and then, try and explain the HUGE mob of women sporting the "I had an abortion" t-shirts at the Dem. convention and the reportedly high number of sales of that same t-shirt at the convention.

Ludwig von Beethoven was born to an opium addict, syphalitic prostitute.

You completely left out the adoption option. The waiting list for adoption is in many cases YEARS long. So long infact, that many American couples have to go outside the U.S. to adopt a child. This fact alone - in my opinion - blasts a very dim light on women who DECIDE to have unprotected sex, and then extenguish the resulting life, simply to avoid the inconvenience of nine months of pregnancy.

the waiting list you mentioned is so long because of red-tape, some people have to go outside the country becuase the aboption process is so complex and lengthy here.
and i don't think it's simply the 'inconvenience of nine months of pregnancy' that they are trying to avoid - but the bringing of another child into this already highly overpopulated planet.

Im glad Ludwig did well despite the problems of his mother, but the present-day statistics show that a high percentage of unplanned children born to poor and/or mentally unprepared parents turn up in the welfare office or on the streets eventually ....
then the republicans blame them for being too 'lazy' to seek work, but hey!! maybe they can be valuable contributors to our 'booming' economy thru doing shitwork for big corporations in the new privatized prison work programs (prison slave-labor), seeing as how our FREE country has the largest percent of it's population incarcerated of any developed nation.

I have quite a few family members on both sides of this issue. Those who have adopted, and those who have put children up for adoption. In the case of my cousin, she put her child up for adoption, rather, a young couple unable to have children of their own, paid for her pregnancy, her hospital and doctors bills, and her expenses while pregnant. They adopted her child and i'm sure gave that baby a wonderful life. Of my wife's aunt and uncles' three children, two are adopted. I worked with a guy who traveled with his wife to Korea to adopt a child. Am I to understand from your last post, that abortion is an acceptable means of population control? Why stop there? Why not be like Sweden and legalize EUTHANASIA for the old and infirm? Perhaps you are better suited to life in China. Or, maybe you just made an excuse shift. This issue is no different than most States passing laws enabling mothers to drop off there babies at any hospital(no questions asked), and still we find new-borns thrown in dumpsters. It's all part of our modern, sociopathic, self-centered, me-me-me, throw away society. Despite any excuses you may make for these women, and your party, 99% of the women who have abortions are not thinking about world population or any other socio-economic concerns. No, they're thinking...shit I don't want the responsibilty of being a mother, and I don't want anyone to find out that I'm pregnant, because I'll be embarassed. So, I'll just go have a quiet little proceedure, and everything will be just like it was.

.... "MY" party, lol .... you're making me laugh.
I may vote democratic but it's by no means "My Party"
if you don't "get" that then you don't even know me any more Djangooooooooo. Anyone that would say Psi is a Democrat is automatically disqualified for claiming to know anything about my beliefs. Anyone that would call me a liberal is only scratching the surface ....

In fact yes, i do consider the *OPTION* of abortion to be an acceptable method of population control - since there are practically no measures being taken. (other than the even MORE barbaric method favored by "Your Party" -letting 'already born' people starve to death and grinding them up in wars they didn't start)

Remember to read that last line carefully, i said OPTION, not forced abortion as is practiced in China.

I don't support Euthanasia for the old & infirm - unless they WANT it. I'm totally in favor of ones sacred right to pull your own plug when you damn well please ... the 'right to die' if that's what you want to call it -

and since were on some intense topics, you may be interested to know i'm in favor of Eugenics as well. Once again on a voluntary basis only ... and we have that now, my uncle was advised to not reproduce because there was a 50/50 chance of the child having muscular dystrophy. I was tested for this gene but luckily i don't have or carry it. So he made a voluntary personal Eugenic choice not to have kids - i'm in favor of more research on the genetic basis of human disease and either fixing it or providing high-risk couples with the means to create multiple embryos and pick ones that are genetically ok.

BTW. I'm not in favor of carrying this work over into behavioral genetics, because we still need the 'bio-diversity' of human adaptive mechanisms to deal successfully with the future

I may be wrong, and if I am...I apologize. However, I would be willing to bet that - if you vote - you vote exclusively with your left hand.
Your ascertion that republicans merely "grind people up" in their preferred method of population control-war, is absolutely contrived. As proof I will offer you an exercise; 1.) Determine every military action the U.S. has been involved in. 2.) Determine the Ruling party at that time - President & Congress. You will discover that by a margin of 3 to 1, Democrats send our Nation to war. Infact, upon reflection, liberals...progressives....whatever you/they call themselves, have become unwitting (assumably)advocates of death, destruction, and putrescence. While proclaiming themselves advocates of Love, Peace, and Unity. This base schizophrenic hypocricy....is what repels me from them. The liberal agenda has become more, and more to destroy any established values, and live in whatever hedonistic manner they choose. Which, could be tolerated if they weren't also attempting to force the rest of the nation to advocate this agenda as the "right way to be".

Django, before you start frothing at the mouth over *gasp* "EUTHANASIA" (ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS), maybe you should pick up a med journal or two on medical ethics. I have hardcopy for you - I don't know where to find it on the net. Turns out, healthcare isn't the practice of unnaturally preserving life. It's the practice of reducing human suffering. Many people don't understand this subtle, yet profound difference. This has deep philosphical roots that extend throughout the American medical tradition. Let me know if you're interested.

PsiPhi, I know what Eugenics is. You don't like it. Eugenics doesn't mean making personal decisions for better human genetics. It means a central organization passes laws controlling the decisions (and fates) of citizens, so that no personal choice is possible.


And our latest hot-button issue: Abortion.

There are two seperate questions here really, though people routinely muddle the two. This confusion is the source of much needless disagreement on the issue.

• Shouldn't the termination of the life process be illegal in our society?


• Another question: How can we minimize abortion?

Your appraisal of the left, liberal and democratic is extreme, full of straw and polarizes unrelated issues to the point that I cannot decipher your true position other than, "I hate people who don't vote like me".

Just thought you should know.

I would not expect you to be able to translate what I have said. I don't care how people vote. I care what people try to accomplish. Now, let's see if I can create a very simple analogy so that the translation will be at a minimum.

There were four little bunnies that all lived happily in a garden.

One day one of the bunnies went out and talked to some bunnies that lived in another part of the garden.

These new bunnies weren't happy at all though.

They didn't like their garden, but the happy bunny invited them to be a part of his beautiful garden.

But, to keep the garden beautiful, all the bunnies had to work very hard.

The new bunnies didn't enjoy working very hard, and they began to think about how nice it was just to lay around all day long.

But, their part of the garden was all dry, dead, and full of weeds. So, they didn't want to return.

So, they fucking started protesting, and suing the happy bunnies. because they felt it was a violation of their fucking rights to make them actually work and be responsible. And the whole fucking garden is dead and full of weeds, and the bunnies spend their lives fucking the day away.

The End

The Following is a Direct translation of the original (greek) Hippocratic oath. Which, physicians take to this day.

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Just thought YOU should know.

The next time I need healthcare in ancient Greece, I'll be sure to remember that you posted the Hippocratic oath for us. Other than that, what's your point?

Medicine has thankfully progressed since 350 BC. This oath has been updated several times and is only a small part of medical ethics.

Graduates haven't used the old oath for a long time. But you knew that... right.

Maybe you should ask your brother....let him school you. This is the modern version of the Hippocratic oath. Not much diiferent.

You do solemnly swear, each by whatever he or she holds most sacred: That you will be loyal to the Profession of Medicine and just and generous to its members. That you will lead your lives and practice your art in uprightness and honor.

That into whatsoever house you shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick to the utmost of your power, your holding yourselves far aloof from wrong, from corruption, from the tempting of others to vice.

That you will exercise your art solely for the cure of your patients, and will give no drug, perform no operation, for a criminal purpose, even if solicited, far less suggest it.

That whatsoever you shall see or hear of the lives of men or women which is not fitting to be spoken, you will keep inviolably secret.

These things do you swear. Let each bow the head in sign of acquiescence. And now, if you will be true to this, your oath, may prosperity and good repute be ever yours; the opposite, if you shall prove yourselves forsworn.

And Always remember "First, Do no Harm"

Oh look, it happens to lack the very anti-euthanasia passages we were talking about! Imagine!

Heh it's like you haven't thought about this at all. What are you fighting me with, Google? Dude, I've read books and journals on med ethics. I was telling you earlier I have them in hardcopy. I'll hook you up if you are interested.

There's really no debate here.

What the Fuck is that? I got books? In hardcopy? I'm sure you've got a hardcopy of the PDR. If you prefer, I can scan the Hippocratic Oath from hardcopy. Maybe you should ask the good Dr. Kevorkian if euthanasia is still considered illegal. And the debate over abortion is still out. You'll hook me up? My Father-in-law is a family practice - Doctor of Osteopathy, my sister-in-law is graduating Med. school this year, two of my wife's uncles are doctors, my cousin is an encologist, and my very close friend is a famous transplant surgeon. But, you've got books.

This blurb fom an article about Europeans down-playing Lance Armstrong's record sixth Tour de France victory very accurately defines at least SOME of my feelings on being "American".

Lance Armstrong's European critics—even if they are not overtly anti-American—resent even more than his dominance of what has traditionally been a European sport his very American style of success. He trains too hard for them, plans too carefully, strives too relentlessly. He does not wear his talent lightly or camouflage his intense desire to win. Success at any price, they imply, just as Abrahams' critics accused him of abandoning the ideals of an amateur in "a headlong pursuit of individual glory."

On one point, at least, Armstrong's European critics are right. Striving for success, like following one's dream, is a quintessentially American trait. Taken together, the two have made millionaire moguls of uneducated immigrants, powerful politicians of low-born nobodies, world-famous inventors of basement tinkerers, and great sports champions of disadvantaged youths like Armstrong. The natural home for ambitious dreamers, whatever their nationality, remains the United States.

that sums up a lot of my feelings about the unique benefits of America's Ideals too ... no debate on that

however, I feel that the current expression of republican politics and most specifically the Bush administration happens to erode and exploit these great American possibilities and make a mockery of the 'American Dream'.

You feel the opposite way ..... i'm very happy for you. Luckily we can still have such debates - even though Ashcroft's Patriot Act comes razor close to defining 'political dissent' (difference of opinion) as an act of aiding terrorism or a probable cause for surveilance, warrantless searches and secret indefinite detention.

"The liberal agenda has become more, and more to destroy any established values, and live in whatever hedonistic manner they choose."

hey yeah .... remember the line about
Life, Liberty (freedom to live according to any values you chose, established or not) and the pursuit of happiness (sounds like straight up hedonism to me)

Life.....abortion?
liberty......Freedom ain't free.
and the pursuit of happiness......within the confines of the law, Liberal judges are more and more circumventing the law by using the activist bench outside the intent of the constitution.

Bush Cites US Readiness To Harm US 8-5-4

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush told a roomful of top Pentagon brass on Thursday that his administration would never stop looking for ways to harm the United States.

The latest installment of misspeak from a president long known for his malapropisms came during a signing ceremony for a new $417 billion defense appropriations bill that includes $25 billion in emergency funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," Bush said.

The Republican incumbent, who is in a tight race for reelection against Democrat John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, used the 11-minute presentation to underscore his commitment to U.S. troops.

On hand for the ceremony were Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Ashcroft Orders Libraries To Destroy Copies Of Laws, Federal Statutes On Asset Forfeiture May Not Be Published -

In another move towards federal tyranny, the Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered the American Library Association to destroy all copies of the federal laws on asset forfeiture and to deny access to those laws to the general public.

The unprecedented move, in which US citizens would be unable to read or know the text of the laws they are expected to obey, was another stage in the growing power of President George W Bush.

The American Library Association has refused the request of the "Justice" Department to destroy copies of the law, and made the following statement:

Statement regarding DOJ request for removal of government publications by depository libraries

The following statement has been issued by President-Elect Michael Gorman, representing President Carol Brey-Casiano, who is currently in Guatemala representing the Association:

July 30, 2004

Statement from ALA President-Elect Michael Gorman:

Last week, the American Library Association learned that the Department of Justice asked the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the Department has deemed not "appropriate for external use." The Department of Justice has called for these five these public documents, two of which are texts of federal statutes, to be removed from depository libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to those with access to a law office or law library.

The topics addressed in the named documents include information on how citizens can retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation.

The documents to be removed and destroyed include: Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Procedure; Select Criminal Forfeiture Forms; Select Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes; Asset forfeiture and money laundering resource directory; and Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA).

ALA has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the withdrawn materials in order to obtain an official response from the Department of Justice regarding this unusual action, and why the Department has requested that documents that have been available to the public for as long as four years be removed from depository library collections. ALA is committed to ensuring that public documents remain available to the public and will do its best to bring about a satisfactory resolution of this matter.

Librarians should note that, according to policy 72, written authorization from the Superintendent of Documents is required to remove any documents. To this date no such written authorization in hard copy has been issued.

Keith Michael Fiels
Executive Director
American Library Association
(800) 545-2433 ext.1392

If infact, this is true AS WRITTEN, the very important part of this statement is "the Department has requested that documents that have been available to the public for as long as four years". The Important part being the "four years". Though the post implies that this material has always been available the American public, it obviously has not. And, the "four years" would infact mean, that the Bush Administration made them public in the first place. Further more, what these type of statements never illuminate, is the possible reasoning behind the action...i.e. addendums to federal statute, and supplementals all of which would make the current vresions obsolete, and therefore subject to recall. But of course, there must always be the liberal spin.

(yet another example of extreme mismanagement of this 'war')

One of the greatest coups in Washington's nearly three-year war against al-Qaeda has suddenly turned sour with reports the White House prematurely exposed the identity of a key source whose contacts and communication with the terrorist group's operational masterminds had yet to be fully exploited.

The source, 25-year-old computer wizard Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, had been cooperating with Pakistani police and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) since he was quietly detained in Lahore on July 12, until the New York Times published his name last Monday after receiving a "background" briefing by the White House.

British and Pakistani intelligence agencies were reportedly furious with the leak, which forced UK police to hurriedly round up 13 al-Qaeda suspects who are alleged to have been in email communication with Khan. Five others who were sought by MI5 reportedly escaped capture, and there is some question that the British had gathered enough evidence to persuade a judge to keep the 13 detainees in custody, according to published reports.

"The outing of Khan, probably the most important asset the U.S. has ever had inside al-Qaeda, is a huge disaster and a setback to attempts to finish off the top leadership of al-Qaeda," according to Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan, whose Web log (or "blog") "Informed Comment" is widely read in Washington.

"By exposing the only deep mole we've ever had within al-Qaeda, it ruined the chance to capture dozens if not hundreds more," a former Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus, told Fox News on Saturday.

You can't have it both ways...

You can't complain about secrecy, and then complain about openess.

This is exactly what I've been talking about for some 6 months with you guys, while you all bitched and moaned about secrecy in the Bush whitehouse, and the whole "trust us" deal with them. I told you then, that you can not be allowed a great deal of information, you don't know what's going on, everything you say is purely speculation, you are not informed enough to make the types of statements you are making.....etc. And then, when you do actually get information from this administration, information that was designed to make you realize that the threat was real, you call them idiots for giving it to you. Well, FUCK-OFF! I can't stand hypocricy! And, it seems that you guys can't open your mouths without talking out of both sides of it! And, maybe ....just maybe, the press had a judgement to make about releasing the information they got...off the record.

Yes, I can complain about secrecy and then about openness.

The Bush whitehouse uses secrecy when the truth is politically embrassing ...

and then apparently because of sheer incompetence they compromise international terrorism investigations by leaking names like valerie palme and now this hacker kid.

The reason this pissed me off is because fighting this 'war' as a primarily Military effort is waste of lives, resources, credibility and intelligence. Working effectively with international anti-terrorism allies in the criminal area of enforcement & surveillance is a key to heading off more terrorism than invading countries like Iraq needlessly, & i'ts a lot less expensive, polarizing and obvious.

in you post i noticed a great big empty spot where there might be some mention or acknowledgement of the FACT that *across the board* here and in international intelligence this event is viewed as an EXTREME FUCKUP in the War of Terrorism - don't go blaming it on the press .... or switching the subject to hypocricy

did you miss this sentence? "By exposing the ONLY deep mole we've ever had within al-Qaeda, it ruined the chance to capture dozens if not hundreds more," a former Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus, told Fox News on Saturday.

yet another blip in an endless list of big preventable fuckups for Bush, these guys are acting like rookies .... end of story

But, the problem with your argument is, that you know shit about shit.

"The reason this pissed me off is because fighting this 'war' as a primarily Military effort is waste of lives, resources, credibility and intelligence. Working effectively with international anti-terrorism allies in the criminal area of enforcement & surveillance is a key to heading off more terrorism than invading countries like Iraq needlessly, & i'ts a lot less expensive, polarizing and obvious."

You're not a field operative, an intelligence expert, or a military strategist. Even if you had John Kerry's ear, he would blow you off. You know shit about shit. You have no qualifications to be making broad statements on how the incredibly complex war on terrorism should be faught, nor do you have the background, education, or training that ANY of these people that you are calling incompetent have. You are a very intelligent person, but that and $3.25 will buy you a cup of coffee at starbucks. You completely overlook FACTS like the "international anti-terrorism allies" would be doing exactly what they have been doing for the last 50 years if it weren't for the pressure this administration has put on them....nothing. Facts like - a large majority of congress, including John Kerry, disagreeing with you on whether or not we should have ousted Saddam. And, the subject has ALWAYS been hypocricy. Who are you to call any of these people rookies....you have no knowledge base on any of this..except what you drag off the internet. I mean really....do you honestly believe that you or Phayyde or anybody else you know....knows something that the people who are actually conducting this war on a daily basis don't? Do you actually think you YOU are a more qualified strategist than the military officers with YEARS of experience. Did you ever stop to even consider that the whole thing could have been counter-ops. Of course not, your too sure that you're more qualified than the intelligence operatives that have been doing this everyday for however long.

Ok first off you repeatedly mis-spell fought as "faught" and thought as "thaught", please ......

As for the complexities of this war ... at each turning point i looked at both sides, and my record is holding up fine ...

The admin said we'd be welcomed as libertors with few problems - i was very skeptical and we're still fighting a year later, even after restoring 'soverignty'. score 1.

they said we'd find lot's of WMD - I read way before it 'broke' that Chalabi was a crook eager to tell them whatever would speed the invasion and that many top defectors said the WMD were destroyed in the 90's & we were on a wild goosechase. score 2.

The Nigerian documents in the state of the union speech - i happened to "drag off the internet" the information on how they were forgeries about 2 months before the infamous speech. score 3

Shock and Awe - On the start of the war I knew this shock and awe shit was for the media exclusively. And amazingly, wow - no secret bunkers at the locations we targeted, no decapitation strike, etc .... just more dead civilians

Better Stability in the mid-east as predicted?
I came to the same conclusion as "annonymous" CIA binladen expert, that this Iraq war was just gonna play into the hands of Bin-laden's recruitment strategy and splinter the country .... score 4.

I smelled a funny stench of apocalyptic schizophrenia around this admin - and then the news broke about the general boykins going to churches speaking of this war in terms of fighting the forces of satan and a holy war against islam. score 5

Abhu Gharib Scandal - I read about the attempts by high level officials to redefine torture, tiptoe around geneva and of the likely consequences, and pondered what a stupid idea this was about 6 months before the prison abuse scandal broke. score 6

etc ....

and ... "Do you actually think you YOU are a more qualified strategist than the military officers with YEARS of experience. "

no, of course not ... the point was that people who ARE military officers with YEARS of experience are saying that this latest 'leak' was a major fuckup. Who are YOU to say it wasn't?

Please pardon my mis-spelling of the word fought, I did mis-spell it once, I don't however, see where I used the word thought, but if I did use it earlier, and mis-spelled it, I apologize for offending your learned, and most scholarly sensibilities.

What can I say, YOU should be the next national security advisor, hell, the next president. I'm surprised they haven't tapped you earlier for this position. I mean after all, you are obviously infinitely more qualified than any of those Kennedy school of government, Yale, Harvard, M.I.T., or US war college graduates they've got working on this. Shit, why waste money on a cabinet, you could do it all by yourself. We won't need a Congress either. Just you in the White House, efficiently forming policy from you daily briefings off the internet....you can handle everything. You could handle all those insignificant world affairs by ...say noon, and then spend the rest of the day playing your sax and creating fractal art. To think, the solution to this WHOLE mess has been living in Nashville all along!

hey Django ... I'll give you 20$ to vote for Nader

SO ... are you suggesting that doing one's own research, looking into more than the hopelessly oversimplified news soundbytes, finding news sources that you can trust (to an extent) and forming an opinion is somehow improper, or implies megalomania?
Look how Bush does it ..... he proudly declares that he doesn't even read the newspaper, does not read his own briefings and lets everybody else do his thinking for him ....
maybe if Bush spent more time getting "daily briefings off the internet" he would have known that the Nigerian documents were not suitable to mention in the state of the union address, lol

Yeah, that's what I want, a complete financial depression caused by the total destruction of American corporations. Now, if you could somehow combine Nader & Perot, you'd have a hell of a candidate....a neurotic one, but a hell of a candidate none-the-less.

NO, I am not suggesting that you should not be as informed as possible, I AM suggesting that you learn to recognize the fact that being as informed as possible in no way means being completely informed. I can tell you absolutely, based on my own lengthy military experience, and the knowledge derived from it, that many of the ascertions you've made are unequivicably untrue. I can't tell you what, or what the facts truly are, but you'll have to assume that I'm telling you the truth.

You and Phayyde typically state your OPINION as fact. Example: The war in Iraq. You ascert that the entire war has been one fuck-up after another, and was Bush's idiot idea in the first place. You however, completely ignore, or do not acknowledge the fact that Congress approved the war, and 70% of them would today. You state - as a matter of fact - that the entire war on terror has been a dismal failure, because of Bush. Yet for every un-named source or former anybody you site as a source for this declaration there are 10 open, current sources that dispute your claim, but you blow those off as ignorant, incompetent, or somehow unworthy of mentioning. You ignore the VAST majority of military men and women who support the way this war is being conducted, and sieze on the miniscule percentage that don't and then say...Ah-hah see the military thinks Bush is a dumbass too! You simply refuse to just come out and say; I don't like Bush and I never will...that's just me. No, what you do instead, is white-wash ALL the positives of the last 3 1/2 years, and cherry-pick all the possible negatives (and there are some) and then say..see I'm not just pathologicly oposed to Bush on every level, I'm forced into this position by the facts. You make broad declarations on on-going, highly classified operations, as though you are somehow in-the-know, when infact, only the handfull of people actually involved know anything at all.

...is you can say:

Go Nader!

gonader ...Get it?
It has the word gonad... nevermind.

Uhh...he said gonad-er...uhh

I don't like Bush ... but I can't say that I never will, in fact I give him a fresh chance every time I watch him speak. He's just a human being who has a terribly tough job, i wouldn't want to be in his shoes, but that doesn't strip me of any freedom to form and voice an opinion about presidential policies or politics.

There are even qualities I can see in him that I respect, but essentially he seems to be the ultimate example of the 'peter principle' which states that in a corporate hierarchy you will tend to get promoted until you land at a job which is beyond your level of competence.

Bush is not the smartest guy, he brags of being a 'c' student and this is a-ok. I'm not hateful because he is average ... nothng wrong with that + there are 100's of types of intelligence not yet tested for, IQ tests only measure about 10. It's not his intelligence that bothers me, it's his seeming inability to discuss any issues in in-depth terms. That's something that I expect from a president
- I had tons of disagreements with Clinton on various issues, and wouldn't trust him more than 50/50, but at least I had the confidence that he understood many many issues enough to speak on them spontaneously and in a detailed manner.
It frightens me Django when I see GWB on TV looking like a deer in headlights and stammering to answer simple questions and speaking in the most vague and general terms possible.

Like I said in another post - it's not a personal thing. I don't hate him as a being, an evolving soul living his life as best he can. I wish him well ... and I will be glad for him to be ANYTHING but the chief representative of the Unites States, lol.

A puppet reciting lines. Leaders don't talk like that. Thinkers don't think like that.

I heard Meryl Streep (yeah f*ck your anti-actor bias, she works and shits just like you, buddy) on the radio today. She ain't Solomon, by any stretch. But having children, I agreed with her that my motivations in this aren't political. I just want to do the absolute best I can for my children.

She said:

"I wonder what kind of bombs Jesus Christ (GWB's proclaimed personal savior) would have used to slaughter those Iraqi children."

Not exactly the most productive sentiment. But useful. When your heart, when your mind weighs this man in November, these alarming ideological inconsistencies count for something.

It's easy, comfortable even, to believe with steeled faith, as you do, Django. To swim with the tide and ask no questions. To repress your natural curiosity. To ignore your moral compass in favor of action. To shout brash words in favor of quietly answering these difficult questions.

At times, I envy that about you, Django. I envy you until I realize that the shallow peace you enjoy is an illusion. And all that bitter vitriol you spew towards your enemies is but a shadow of the inner turmoil you hide within your heart. Your internal ambivalence is a hidden sea at war with itself. Only the faintest stirrings of that great tempest surface in your curious posts.

Intellectual honesty has a price, that's true. Oh, but it's worth it Django.

I really do get tired of saying this, Phayyde, but what a bunch of crap.

"I wonder what kind of bombs Jesus Christ (GWB's proclaimed personal savior) would have used to slaughter those Iraqi children."

Not even 60 years ago, we would drop three THOUSAND bombs in one day, on one town, to destroy one factory, killing THOUSANDS of presumably innocent civilians(men women, and yes children). And when we were done, we'd pat those who remained on the back, and offer them a Hershey bar. Ask the Dutch, the Flemmish, or the Pols if the price was too high. Today, we drop one bomb from 50,000 feet, guide it down the stove pipe of some mud hut, and if we can't tie the occupants of that hut directly to Satan himself, the Meryl Streeps of the world start shitting their pants. Well FUCK her. I have no inner turmoil. I didn't choose to have those fucks declare war on me, but since they did, I would - without hesitation - raize entire towns that harbored them, entire states that comforted them, entire nations that supported them. And, if the "innocents" had the good sense to take a powder before it happened, I would be pleased. However, if they chose to stay knowing the possible consequences....it's on them.

I don't think you are seeing the similarity of your attitude to that of the terrorists themselves, in fact this talk of leveling whole towns, states and entire nations (LOL) innocents and all ... sounds like THEIR TALK. You are more indiscriminate in your attack plan than they are dude
and this quote "Well FUCK her. I have no inner turmoil." as long as you are slinging this shit and anger and vengance and saying Fuck so and so, it's totally obvious that you DO have some inner turmoil ... or that you need some friggin liberal 'hate-management' therapy of some type.

I would certainly hope that you remain intelligent enough to see the difference between my own determination, and the determination of those that would make a cowardly, UNPROVOKED attack on my home. If some shitbag fired a shotgun at you without warning or provocation, and was fully intent on doing it again..and again until he killed you, you would be a complete moron if you didn't use EVERY means within your grasp to kill that man. The situation with the war on terror is the same, but on a much grander scale. You don't know WHO they are, or when or how THEY plan on killing you. It is now unquestionable that many of the "innocents" being held as unlawful combatants that the A.C.L.U. and amnesty international fought for, and were subsequently released, went right back to the battlefield where we captured them the first time. Where is your and Mrs. Streeps indignation at that utter violation of the Geneva convention. When a population ALLOWS combatants to hide amongst them, as one of them, and conduct this type of war, they bring this down on themselves. This is exactly why the Geneva convention created the unlawful combatant clauses. Is our military just supposed to wait until the terrorist decide to announce themselves? Or, are we sooo, confident in F.E.M.A.s' abilty to control the aftermath of a major attack that we don't need to pursue this matter aggressively. And , if Kerry should win the upcoming election, will his bombs (that he WILL drop) be somehow less inhumane than George Bush's. War sucks enough when you know who to shoot at, the fact that civilian deaths have been as low as they have, is a testiment to the determination our government to not kill them.....even to the detriment of our own troops. I would not be so thoughtful.

You say they are low ..... what are the number of civilian casualties of the Iraq war Django? Please tell me ....

Would you like the numbers broken down into categories like, for instance;

1.)Civilian deaths caused by enemy fire.
2.)Civilian deaths caused by coalition fire.
3.)Civilian deaths as the result of auto accidents.
4.)Civilian deaths resulting from disease.

Etc....?

I'd like it im the form of Iraqi civilian casualties as a result of coalition bombing, fire or crossfire, basically the total of people who were what we can call 'innocent' victims who were not killed intentionally

if you say it's low, i assume you have some data to base this on


ps. couldn't resist posting this outtake ..... LOL!!!

"Just as I sat down last night to offer you my opinion on whether or not Bush's appointment for CIA director, Rep. Porter Goss, was a good choice, I was given access to this transcript of outtakes from Fahrenheit 9/11:

INTERVIEWER: [Y]ou come from intelligence. This is what you did, this is what you know.

REP. GOSS: Uh, that was, uh, 35 years ago.

INTERVIEWER: Okay.

REP. GOSS: It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50’s to approximately the early 70’s. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services officer and yes, I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.’ Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.

– Rep. Porter Goss, March 3, 2004, Washington, DC

Let's review: Goss asserts he lacks the language skills, the cultural background, the technical skills – "the things that you need to have" – to even get a job with the CIA, much less lead it.

I defer to his judgment."

How about giving the number of Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of US foreign policy since 1990?

thought you'd love this little anti-michael moore clip - a fake ad for "I am not an asshole: the michael moore story" www.moveonplease.org

i'd still love those civilian casualty stats since you're sure they are so friggin low .....

(from washington monthly)
-----
TERRORIST DRUGS FROM CANADA

George Bush's Medicare bill prohibits the importation of cheap drugs from Canada. This has proven to be an unpopular rule, and Bush spokesmen have struggled to come up with persuasive reasons for their stand.

Today they finally did:

"Cues from chatter" gathered around the world are raising concerns that terrorists might try to attack the domestic food and drug supply, particularly illegally imported prescription drugs, acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester M. Crawford says.

....Crawford said the possibility of such an attack was the most serious of his concerns about the increase in states and municipalities trying to import drugs from Canada to save money.

Are there any depths to which these guys won't sink? What's next? Alleged al-Qaeda infiltration of labor unions? Email from Osama to the NAACP?

Every time I think the Bush administration can't get any worse, they get worse. Every. Single. Time.

----

Of course the Bush Admin will argue that Kerry policies are "pro-terrorist"; it's the modern version of Nixon's "pink-sheeting" (accusing his opponents of being pro-Communist).

And it can be used over and over, on every conceivable issue. For instance:

Y'know, it's unlikely that al-Qaida agents in the USA have become wealthy in their "cover-story" jobs. Most likely they have at best "middle class" incomes. Therefore Kerry's plan to give tax breaks to the middle class would put more money in the hands of terrorists, while Bush's policies deny them that money....

----

There are several sources from which you may gain these numbers in various breakdowns. I will use what I think is propbaly a leftist site, so that you
might give it some credance. www.iraqbodycount.com
Here you will see each individual incident where "civilians" were killed as well as an up to date total. I put civilians in quotations, because every reference I researched made the same statement. That is, it is incredibly difficult to tally civilian deaths as a result of insurgents/resistance fighters not distinguishing themselves from the civilian population. All that being said, the totals range from 10k to 15k since the start of operations. I actually figured each incident by what type of incident it was. For example, airstrike vs. car bomb. I think we can assume that a car bomb was probably an insurgent attack. With these figures, I was able to gleam that just over 63% of the total was the result of insurgent attacks. This means that the range for "civilian" deaths directly attributable to coalition attacks is from 3.7k to 5.5k.

As for Phayydes dumbass question....piss off Hanoi jane.

In response to the new director of the CIA, I have not seen, nor do I plan to see Mr. Moores propoganda, therefore, I can not confirm nor deny that quote, nor do I have any comment on it.

will u gimme a call? Need some info.