Mis-speak, for the Bush-lover in us all.

http://www.bushcalendar.com/cgi-bin/htmlos.cgi/3594.1.2849061084813775673

Whiskey & Gunpowder
by Mike Shedlock ~ "Mish"
Illinois, U.S.A.

Is It 1966 Again?

FLASH BACK TO 1966: Just as the United States was sinking ever deeper into the quagmire known as Vietnam, Vermont Sen. George Aiken delivered a famous speech in which he said that We should declare victory and get out. Unfortunately, the war dragged on for six more years, and eventually North Vietnam won.

Take a look at north Vietnam today: Three decades later, Vietnam is a quasi-capitalist country, cultivating U.S. investment, consumer markets, and tourism. How might history have changed if only we had the guts to admit a stupid mistake in 1966, declaring the war "won" and going home? For starters, we would have spared countless American and Vietnamese lives. The outcome of history would have been far different and we would have had one less huge black spot on the soul of the United States.

At the time, "staying the course" was posed as a test of American credibility. I was in the seventh grade at the time. Our science teacher, Harry Don Wirth, told us, "I do not think we should have entered this 'conflict,' but it's too late to pull out now." As Lyndon Johnson liked to say: Who would follow the lead of a superpower who "tucked tail and ran"?

http://www.howestreet.com/story.php?ArticleId=1756

TONKIN NOT REAL, NSA ADMIT
Saturday, December 03, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

The Attack on Iraq is by no means the only time in modern history that a U.S. President has faked the data to justify starting a war. Now, as reported by the Baltimore Sun, even a National Security Agency analysis admits that the alleged 1964 attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, cited by the Lyndon Johnson administration as justification to escalate our military presence in Vietnam, never happened.

The material was somehow intercepted, and posted on the Internet for public exposure. The story cites the most provocative document, a 2001 article by an NSA historian, arguing that the evidence of this alleged incident was "deliberately skewed" by the agency's intelligence officers, before they passed it to policymakers.

Based on the mistaken belief that such an attack had occurred, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered airstrikes on North Vietnam, and Congress passed a broad resolution authorizing military action. Although these actions occurred over 40ears ago, the documents have remained under "top secret" classification. The Sun article said that "Some intelligence officials said they believe the article's release was delayed because the agency was wary of comparisons between the role of flawed intelligence during the Vietnam War and that preceding the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."


staff reports - Free-Market News Network
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=2952

Greenspan warns of US threat to global trade
By Gary Duncan, Economics Editor


ALAN GREENSPAN last night issued a stern, renewed warning over threats to the global economy posed by the twin US budget and current account deficits, and a rising climate of protectionism worldwide.

As the outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman prepared to bid farewell to colleagues among finance ministers and central bank chiefs from the world’s biggest economies at a London dinner, he took the chance to re-emphasise his concerns over key global risks.

Mr Greenspan, 79, steps down from his post at the end of January after 18 years guiding the American economy.

Yesterday he said that unless action was taken to curb US Government borrowing and to fend off protectionist sentiment that could lead to new trade barriers, the world economy was prey to the risk that global imbalances could unwind in a painful manner.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,16849-1901909,00.html

Ten more marines died today so that the others will not have died in vain.

The late Goebbel had much to learn from these guys.

Goebbels was the father of modern propaganda in a totalitarian state (a term that he coined), in which he made use of every available means. The propaganda he spread was remarkably replete with defamations, libels, and lies; he was convinced that people would believe the lies if only they were repeated often enough, and the bigger the lie, the better chance it had of being believed. Goebbel's propaganda always incited hate against some enemy. He was a radical and fanatic anti-semite, but his hatred of Jews was also based on utilitarian considerations of exploiting anti-semitism for the furthering of his propaganda aims.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/12/23917/903

As did the Soviets.

A spin cycle out of control
By Daniel Schorr

WASHINGTON - Washington these days feels a little like Moscow in Soviet times when the government routinely dispensed information to the public and the public routinely didn't believe it. The two main newspapers were the Communist Party organ, Pravda, (Truth) and the Soviet government organ, Izvestiya (News). People used to say, "There is no Izvestiya in Pravda and no Pravda in Izvestiya."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0121/p09s02-cods.htm

"Is there anybody in this administration who knows what is going on in Iraq?"

Yes, Rumsfeld and Cheney, and they tell us things are going well in Iraq.

"conspiracy to commit murder"

Mlsoft, Conspiring to kill someone IS a crime. Rice said:

"you can't allow someone to commit the crime before you detain them."

I wouldn't be so quick to circumvent the Constitution. We know nothing about the detainees. Until very recently, we knew nothing about the existance of the prisons.

Is this relativism? How do you compare street thugs with the sovereign, democratic government of the world's only super power?

Where do you see treason or Jewish conspiracy?

PROBLEMS ARE NOT WITH LIBERAL OPPONENTS
BUT WITH FREE THINKERS IN RED STATES

By: Bob Strodtbeck

"Islamic nations have a proven inability to organize and develop technologies and machinery to defend themselves in a traditional war against Western powers. While we hear much of, 'weapons of mass destruction,' it is highly doubtful that Iraq can develop the capability to successfully deliver such through missile launch without the aid of another nuclear power--like China, our modern profitable trading partner, which has been known to support terrorist nations with munitions and training.

The inability of Muslim nations to defend themselves against the West in traditional combat has left them to use terrorism as a political tactic to win their independence from influences they do not desire. It can be assured that any defense that Islamic extremist execute will be taken in civilian venues intended to break the spirit of citizens who hear of easy battle field victories, but fear walking the streets." Comments written by this columnist on August 8, 2002, at the beginning of the Bush Administration's public call to make war against Iraq.

"...any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false.... Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate." Vice President Dick Cheney, November 21, 2005, in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

The sad fact about America's invasion of Iraq is that it was totally unnecessary. Iraq had no navy to carry an attack force across the Atlantic Ocean to invade America. It had no fighters or bombers that had the range to fly across the world to rain bombs down upon American's heads. Saddam Husein was not at the center of a wicked coalition of imperialist nations.




Simply put, Iraq was an isolated backward nation with a broken and poorly equipped military. Its government was cruel, dysfunctional, and maintained control by killing opponents. It had no political infrastructure, so encouraging the populace to support an attack any of its neighbors, let alone the United States, was impossible.

The only way that Iraq could cause any trouble to the US was to sneak biologic or nuclear fissile material (which we now know it did not have) across the borders America shares with Canada or Mexico. Consequently, the best defense to protecting America against the mythical Iraqi WMD's was to seal the borders, stop illegal immigration, and place tight controls on travel to and from Iraq and its neighbors. These options have not been considered throughout the execution of America's War Against International Terrorism.

Gathering basic facts about Iraq, or any other country, was not difficult in 2002, nor is it difficult in 2005. This is the hard reality that faces the Bush Administration as it initiates a new PR campaign to discredit the detractors of the invasion of Iraq. Even though the Bush Administration shaped public opinion to support an Iraqi invasion through members of the mainstream media, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, The Wall Street Journal, and Judith Miller of The New York Times, there were large numbers of individuals who could find sufficient information to help them develop their own opinions regarding the wisdom (or lack thereof) regarding plans to invade Iraq.

Their views opposing those of the Bush Administration and the two party political system were bolstered by highly regarded writers and thinkers such as Paul Craig Roberts, William Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Joseph Sobran. Many of these notable detractors were, at various times, members of and advisors to Republican presidential administrations and congressional staffs since the 1960's and had earned battle scars in the culture wars pitting limited government conservatism against the liberal leviathan that had become the federal government. Therefore to assault some of the best-reasoned criticisms against a war in Iraq as partisan, liberal carping was a nonstarter.

While America is embroiled in debate over the future direction taken with the occupation of Iraq, any attempt to characterize various positions must be considered to be politically motivated. There is no way to suggest that any portrayal of events that led to the invasion are revisionist or devious because the history of the event will not be written for years to come. This is because the full extent of the consequences of the invasion are yet to be known.

The real problem facing the Bush Administration is not that it has treasonous political enemies seeking its destruction, but that there are many of us in the "red states" who made up our own minds regarding the War Against International Terrorism and stood against the tide of popular opinion to state our opposition. We are simple middle-class laborers that work to care for our families, and lead lives that are easily examined by friends, neighbors, and coworkers.

Those within our circles of influence are now seeing us not only as well-reasoned and prescient, but as more trustworthy and credible than the government that is seeking to send their children to faraway countries to fight wars that have been sold with shadows and myths.





"Published originally at EtherZone.com

"corrupt news media that writes what you want them to write for a price"

Maybe it's a US styled democracy. Isn't this what Rupert Murdoch is doing? Murdoch is the very effective propaganda arm of the Bush regime. The old Soviet machine had nothing on these guys.

I believe they paid a right wing pundit to promote No Child Left Behind.

"you can't allow someone to commit the crime before you detain them."

It sets a very scary, unconstitutional precedent. Think about the logic,
we lock people up BEFORE they commit a crime.

The Bush Doctrine promotes re-emptive incarceration like pre-emptive war?

If they can do this, how long until they start locking up Americans BEFORE they commit crimes? There are groups of people who are more likely to commit crime than others. Now, their logic is that these "detainees" are not citizens so US law does not apply, but who are they? Where did they pick them up from? And did they ever have any jurisdiction under US Constitutional or international law? Doubtful.

The Bushies better hope they are on the up-and-up with their detainee policy because a half dozen European nations and the EU is set to investigate.

And all this is being done in the name of DEMOCRACY.

Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings

Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 9:14 a.m. ET May 19, 2004

May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734

Controversy grows in Europe over CIA jail network

By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

PARIS – A gathering storm of outrage will greet Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she visits Europe next week amid allegations that the CIA has been using airports and military bases across the Continent to secretly transport and detain terrorist suspects.

Six countries have launched judicial investigations, Europe's top human rights watchdog has begun a probe, and the European Union has formally asked Washington to clarify reports that the Central Intelligence Agency's network of clandestine jails extends to Europe.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1201/p01s03-woeu.html
___

Bush may be able to fool the American people, but the world might hold him responsible for war crimes is all of this is proven true.

Is this the Bush Doctrine, we become the despotic government that we overthrow? Bush has good reason to be reclusive.

"Allegations that the CIA has been conducting clandestine operations across Europe were sparked by an article in The Washington Post and have multiplied so rapidly that they have now engulfed most European governments.

The allegations are potentially devastating, encompassing an abuse of national sovereignty and human rights.

It is claimed that the CIA has illegally abducted terrorist suspects in Europe, covertly used European airports for transporting terrorist suspects and has been interrogating them in secret prisons - "black sites" - on the Continent.

The row has been fuelled by Washington's steadfast refusal to confirm or deny the allegations.

In Washington yesterday, Dr Rice assured visiting German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier that the White House would reply to an expected formal query from the European Union on the matter, her spokesman Sean McCormack said.

She also dodged the matter in a newspaper interview ahead of her trip to Brussels, Poland and Romania, but said: "We have never fought a war like this before where ... you can't allow someone to commit the crime before you detain them. Because if they commit the crime, thousands of innocent people die."'

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17421128%255E2703,00.html

Warner Seeks Military Response to Report It Paid Off Iraq Press

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Senator John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he asked the Pentagon to respond to published reports that the U.S. military has covertly paid Iraqi newspapers to print pro-American stories.

Warner, a Republican of Virginia, said in a statement that he has ``has no information to confirm or refute the report,'' and asked the Defense Department to brief the committee tomorrow on the issue.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXjhWSGfGJsg

Same-sex marriages given blessing by South Africa
From Jonathan Clayton in Johannesburg


SOUTH AFRICA broke an important regional taboo yesterday by becoming the first African country to authorise same-sex marriage.

The nation joined the handful of countries allowing the practice after the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of gay weddings and ordered parliament to amend marriage laws within a year.

South Africa will become the fifth country in the world to permit same-sex marriage, behind the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Canada; but the decision is not only at odds with the views of the vast majority of its own citizens, but also the rest of Africa, where homosexuality remains largely taboo.

In neighbouring Zimbabwe, President Mugabe frequently attacks homosexuals and lesbians as “worse than dogs and pigs”. Yoweri Museveni, the President of Uganda, has outlawed homosexual sex, declaring it to be “against the order of nature”. He recently ordered detectives to find gays and “lock them up and charge them”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1900137,00.html

Bush rarely speaks to father, family is split
Tue Nov 15 2005 11:23:51 ET
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/11/15/20051115_162600_flash4.htm

President Bush feels betrayed by several of his most senior aides and advisors and has severely restricted access to the Oval Office, INSIGHT magazine claims in a new report.

The president?s reclusiveness in the face of relentless public scrutiny of the U.S.-led war in Iraq and White House leaks regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame has become so extreme that Mr. Bush has also reduced contact with his father, former President George H.W. Bush, administration sources said on the condition of anonymity.

?The atmosphere in the Oval Office has become unbearable,? a source said. ?Even the family is split.?

Sources close to the White House say that Mr. Bush has become isolated and feels betrayed by key officials in the wake of plunging domestic support, the continued insurgency in Iraq and the CIA-leak investigation that has resulted in the indictment and resignation of Lewis ?Scooter? Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney?s former chief of staff.

The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions.

I know that Hannity and O'Reilly believe Soros is the antichrist,

but what does all of that have to do with MoveOn?

What right does the U.S. have to interfere in others' politics?
Posted on Wed, Nov. 30, 2005
By Patrick J. Buchanan


The Comintern, or Communist International, also known as the Third International, was the 1919 creation of Vladimir Lenin.

Its declared purpose: Fight ``by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic.''

Fomenting the communist revolution worldwide was, in brief, the Comintern's mission.

At its Seventh World Congress in 1935, however, on Stalin's orders, the Comintern repudiated the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism as its mission and called for formation of popular fronts in Western nations to combat fascism.

For this act of heresy, Leon Trotsky, the champion of permanent revolution, excommunicated Stalin -- and was himself rewarded in 1940 with an ice ax in the head, courtesy of Stalinist assassin Ramon Mercader.

But Trotskyism did not die with Trotsky. It mutated and is today the taproot of that neoconservatism that calls for permanent revolution to advance global democracy. Today, this ideology is embedded in the Party of Reagan and the Bush administration, and neoconservatives are using tax dollars to create and operate their own Neo-Comintern.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which pumps out millions of dollars to ``promote democracy'' abroad, is its pivotal agency. For 20 years, it has been headed by Carl Gershman, who broke from the Socialist Party to organize Social Democrats USA, which rallied to the candidacy of Democratic Sen. Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson, whose staff was a nesting ground of neocons from Richard Perle to Frank Gaffney to Elliott Abrams.

One organization captured by the Neo-Comintern is Freedom House. Founded by Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie in 1941 as a voice for global democracy and human rights, Freedom House, on the eve of the Iraq war, chose as its new chairman ex-CIA Director James Woolsey. Within his first year, Woolsey had declared Vladimir Putin's Russia ``un-free'' and was beating the drums for ``World War IV'' against ``Islamofascism.''

Flush with tax dollars and tax-deductible contributions, NED, Freedom House and their collaborator foundations now routinely interfere in the internal affairs of foreign nations.

Democracy is our goal, the neocons claim. But viewing their target lists in the Middle East, Near East, Central Asia and Latin America, it is perhaps more exact to say the Neo-Comintern seeks destabilization of all regimes that fail to meet its criteria for membership in their world democratic revolution.

Though a radical leftist populist, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez was democratically elected. He charges that NED had a hand in the 2002 coup that briefly overthrew his government and in the recall election forced upon him in 2004. Foreign journalists contend that the popular ``revolutions'' that ousted Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia and the Leonid Kuchma crowd in Ukraine were also made in the United States and hand-tooled at Langley.

Russian President Putin is a former KGB colonel who knows a little about subversion and wants to guarantee that what happened to his friends in Belgrade and Kiev does not happen to him or his chosen successor when he transfers power in 2008. And he is moving to restrict, and perhaps expedite the expulsion of, all U.S. and Western meddlers in Russian politics.

``Organizations functioning in our country and involved in political activity are basically being used as instruments of foreign policy of other states,'' says Putin. And the man has a point.

Which raises questions for our own government. By what right does the United States, through tax-funded and tax-exempt organizations, interfere in the politics of nations that have not attacked or threatened us? Were the Chinese to intrude in the politics of Mexico and Central America as we have in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, would we not be enraged? Would we not react?

Did we defeat the world communist revolution only to launch our own world democratic revolution? Did we bury the Comintern of Stalin only to create our own? What happened to the America that minded her own business? Why is Bush outsourcing foreign policy to neocons who are the source of most of his headaches today?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK J. BUCHANAN is a syndicated columnist.

I think they've outlawed cross burning as well, but boy was it fun while it lasted. -g-

So now we're left to fight a war we didn't need to fight.
How do we "win" a war that never should have been started?

Dems still need to stand up for themselves and lead. They're still intimidated by the same old rhetoric. The war party responds to challenge by saying "torture" (the pot calling the kettle?), "rape rooms, and Saddam would still be in power." Dems have to find common sense responses like "we're not the world's police, we can't take out all the worlds despots, and no American life is worth a war that was not in our national interest, or a war based on faulty intel."

Or something like that. Lack of leadership enabled the war.

Did blue accuse you of being Islamofascist, or something like that? -g- He thinks I'm KKK! He thinks I burn crosses on peoples lawns... Go figure! And O'Reilly believes he's personally responsible for lower oil prices. Does this reflect the mental status of the unconditional Bush-lover?

Democracy has to grow from within. Democracy imposed from without is not democracy. Despite the "cakewalk" predictions, they're now telling us "we're in it for the long haul," and it's been 32 months. In between spinning Mutha's comments as "cut and run" they tell us we have to "stay the course" in Iraq, stay until the war is won so the deaths won't be in vain. How many more deaths will it take to win a war we never should have started, a war based on an "intelligence failure," at best? I would say all deaths are in vain if they are based on "intelligence failure," but the war party will spin it otherwise.

"O’Reilly Claims He Is Personally Responsible For Lower Gas Prices"

I'm tellin ya.. O'Really has gone off the deep end.

Gas prices are in a free fall along with Dubya's poll numbers.

I just filled up at under $2 bucks a gallon.

Big oil and neocons are afraid of losing control.

"very great ending"

Oh, wow. Maybe Fox will re-run Shock and Awe.

The war party really gets off on that stuff.

brainless,

Rumor has it you're converting to Islam because you love a woman in a headscarf.

Any truth to this? -g-

O'Reilly used to be good. I'll give him that. He didn't tow the conservative line all the time. He had a conservative bent, but his arguments were well reasoned and supported by research. Lately, he's gone off the wall.

"Is there anyone who does not understand why more good folks are unwilling to enter public service??"

Who would run for public office? Politics especially tends to dig up decades old crap to slime. The media does seem to enjoy making idiots or lunatics out of religious folks, and that's not limited to Evangelicals.

I think he does phone sex in the no-spin zone.

O'Reilly on San Francisco:

O'Reilly: "We will expose those media which pass along the vicious personal attacks" of "far-left smear sites"

During the November 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly decried what he described as the abandonment of the phrase "Merry Christmas" and called for "a coalition of the willing to fight against this secular movement."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511290012

In discussing a resolution San Francisco voters passed on November 8 to discourage military recruitment on campuses of public schools and colleges, O'Reilly said:

"[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

In response to the firestorm of protest against these comments, O'Reilly blamed "far-left smear websites" and "Internet guttersnipes" for reporting his statements.

Hey, I mis-speak too. I wouldn't want the media exploiting my gaffes either, and I've made plenty.

The other night, while bloviating with Newt, he said anti-war Americans were "guilty of treason." Even Newt had a hard time with that one. Newts response was actually pro-Constitutional, and pro-debate. A rare, "no-spin" moment for Newt.

What's the penalty for treason, hanging? O'Reilly's losing his marbles. Too much "Kool-Aid" for Bill.

Hey, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong...

His site was the only site that offered any info on the topic I was researching. I looked around the site for quite a while. I'm impressed. Certainly, I don't agree with everything he says. I don't fall lock-step behind anyone, but there's no doubt his info is well researched, wholesome, and comprehensive. I think Dobson is providing a very valuable community service with that site.

In my opinion, he is an example of an evangelical being erroneously portrayed by the media.

O'Reilly's losing his marbles. Believe it or not, I used to like O'Reilly. I found his arguments conservative but well reasoned, and researched. That's no longer the case. He's become another rabid, con talking head.

Phone sex

Neocons don't have sex.

On the theory that we should give credit where credit is due, I was looking up info related to a situation with one of my kids, and was directed to one of Focus on the Family's sites. Dobson provides a very informative site, a very comprehensive free resource, and is actually providing a necessary community service for anyone interested.

I must say, there's more to Dobson than just the idiot we see on TV. I was impressed by his work and contribution. Have a new opinion of Dobson and Focus today.

Did the speech address or do anything to promote actual border security? I'm sure you're aware of the national security issues associated with wide open borders. As well, I'm sure you're aware of the Islamist presence in S.America, and their crossing of the borders?

'Those who choose to not participate are free to do so, but they do not have a right to infringe on the vast majority which wants to celebrate Christmas rather than the "winter holidays".'

Have you been to the department stores? Christmas is everywhere arguing in favor of the now ancient "over-commercialized" sentiment. If you remember, there was a time when most Christians were offended by the over-commercialization of Christmas and, yes, the holiday has been completely exploited for financial gain.

I am sure you will agree that for the department stores, Christmas is indeed about separating a fool and his money. It's regional, and perhaps hard for you to understand, but in parts of the country, "Happy Holidays" is appropriate based on demographics. If most consumers are displeased by this, choose another department store. I'm certain they'll tell you happy whatever-you-want to keep your money flowing. Besides, who needs them wishing Merry Christmas while spraying cologne. A simple "thank you" is more than sufficient.