Friday, November 18, 2005
I wonder how much Scotty McClellan got from Satan for his soul. It must have been a lot, or otherwise, how could he do what he does every day? How you stand in front of your country and lie through your teeth while people are being killed by your employer??
The lies are so horrific that one can't even find any comic relief in his spin-a-rama. He says that it is "baffling that [Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party." Scotty, for one thing, Michael Moore is a filmmaker. Why bring him up? But beyond that, Murtha, a Marine colonel decorated for his service in Vietnam is only expressing what the majority of Americans feel. By the way, Murtha is my new hero with this shot at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
Scotty added that "the eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists." Scotty, beam yourself up. We are not fighting "terrorists" in Iraq. we are fighting Sunni IRAQIS resisting our invasion and the installation of a Shi'a regime.
I hope the price was worth it, Scott.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
The Associated Press
Washington - Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. But they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians.
Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.
"It was not used against civilians," Venable said.
The spokesman referred reporters to an article in the March-April 2005 edition of the Army's Field Artillery magazine, an official publication, in which veterans of the Fallujah fight spelled out their use of white phosphorous and other weapons. The authors used the shorthand "WP" in referring to white phosphorous.
"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the authors wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosive)" munitions.
"We fired `shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
The authors added, in citing lessons for future urban battles, that fire-support teams should have used another type of smoke bomb for screening missions in Fallujah "and saved our WP for lethal missions."
The battle for Fallujah was the most intense and deadly fight of the war, after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. The city, about 35 miles west of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, was a key insurgent stronghold. The authors of the "after action" report said they encountered few civilians in their area of operations.
Italian communists held a sit-in Monday in front of the U.S. Embassy in Rome to protest the reported use by American troops of white phosphorous. Italy's state-run RAI24 news television aired a documentary last week alleging the U.S. used white phosphorous shells in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians during the Fallujah offensive.
The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorous against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."
The department later said its statement had been incorrect.
"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."
Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.
White phosphorous is a colorless-to-yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh.
I would love to hear how you found us. We would appreciate it if you could comment on this post or e-mail us and tell us your story!
Hello, my name is William and I suffer from guilt for not forwarding 50 billion f***ing chain letters sent to me by people who actually believe that if you send them on, a poor six year old girl in Queensland with a tit on her forehead will be able to raise enough money to have it removed before her redneck parents sell her to a travelling freak show. And, do you honestly believe that Bill Gates is going to give you, and everyone to whom you send "his" email, $1000?
How stupid are we? Ooooh, looky here! If I scroll down this page and make a wish, I'll get laid by a model I just happen to run into the next day! What a bunch of bullsh*t.
Maybe the evil chain letter leprechauns will come into my house and sodomize me in my sleep for not continuing a chain letter that was started by St Peter in 5AD and brought to this country by midget pilgrim stowaways on the Endeavour. F*** 'em. If you're going to forward something, at least send me something mildly amusing. I've seen all the "send this to 10 of your closest friends, and this poor, wretched excuse for a human being will somehow receive a nickel from some omniscient being" forwards about 90 times. I don't f***ing care. Show a little intelligence and think about what you're actually contributing to by sending out these forwards. Chances are, it's our own unpopularity.
The point being? If you get some chain letter that's threatening to leave you shagless or luckless for the rest of your life, delete it. If it's funny, send it on. Don't p*ss people off by making them feel guilty about a leper in Botswana with no teeth who has been tied to the arse of a dead elephant for 27 years and whose only salvation is the 5 cents per letter he'll receive if you forward this email.
Now forward this to everyone you know. Otherwise, tomorrow morning your underwear will turn carnivorous and will consume your genitals.
Have a nice day. P.S: Send me 15 bucks and then f*** off.
Iraq investigates more prisoner abuse
Another prisoner abuse scandal has erupted in Iraq with the discovery of more than 170 tortured and starving prisoners in a locked Interior Ministry bunker beneath Baghdad. Many had been severely beaten. Some had been paralysed. Others had skin peeled off their bodies.
US officials deny any responsibility and Iraq's government has ordered an investigation, saying it is shocked by the horrific find. Some human rights groups say Iraq's new security forces are routinely abusing and torturing detainees in ways reminiscent of those used by the notoriously brutal regime of Saddam Hussein.
The detainees were discovered on Sunday night during a raid by US troops searching for a missing teenage boy. They were found in an underground cell near an Interior Ministry compound in Jadriya, a central Baghdad neighbourhood.
Many of them showed signs of severe hunger and beatings. "I was informed that there were 173 detainees held at an Interior Ministry prison and they appear to be malnourished," Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari told reporters. "There is also some talk that they were subjected to some kind of torture."
A junior interior minister Hussein Kamal said "they (the detainees) were being abused. "I've never seen such a situation like this during the past two years in Baghdad, this is the worst," he said."
"I saw signs of physical abuse by brutal beating, one or two detainees were paralysed and some had their skin peeled off various parts of their bodies."
In Washington, US State Department spokesman Adam Ereli called the allegations of abuse "troubling."
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
And who was the PNAC? Well, let's see what they did after their neocon think-tanking stint....
Elliott Abrams---National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs
Richard Armitage---Deputy Secretary of State
John R. Bolton---U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs
Dick Cheney--Lord of Darkness
Seth Cropsey--Voice of America, Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau
Paula Dobriansky--Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Francis Fukuyama--President's Council on Bioethics Member
Bruce Jackson--U.S. Committee on NATO President
Zalmay Khalilzad---Ambassador to Afghanistan Embassy in Kabul
Lewis Libby--- Vizier to the Lord of Darkness
Peter W. Rodman---Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller
Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the US Trade Representative
So the very people who had been salivating over the prospect for years got the keys to the kingdom. Isn't that special?
And of course let us not forget our dear friend Rummy. Remember this one?
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2002
(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq— even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11–notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began….With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H."–meaning Saddam Hussein–"at same time. Not only UBL"– the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld. "Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
I am a securities lawyer. In my field, the "motive and opportunity" to commit fraud often indicates an intent to deceive. We have motive, we have opportunity, and we have fraud.
Re-write that, Mr. President.
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production.
The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Peter W. Rodman
William Schneider, Jr.
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick
Lawmakers are again accusing the Food and Drug Administration of putting politics over science in the long-running saga over whether the morning-after pill should sell without a prescription.
A congressional audit released Monday cited "unusual" steps in the FDA's initial rejection of over-the-counter emergency contraception, including conflicting accounts of whether top officials made the decision even before scientists finished reviewing the evidence.
The FDA is reconsidering the decision on the pill, sold under the brand Plan B. While the report by the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, doesn't say that FDA made the wrong decision, it does raise the most serious questions to date about agency credibility — and increases pressure to settle the issue.
In case you haven't been following the story, the Plan B pill is the "morning-after" pill that can be taken by women after unprotected sex, and it has an 89% success rate at preventing unwanted pregnancies. Scientists do not consider it to be an abortion pill, since it works before the fertilized cell implants itself on the uterus, so it's essentially the same as other forms of biochemical birth control. This pill has been available by prescription for a while now, but the FDA has been investigating making it available over the counter, since studies show that the effectiveness goes up dramatically the sooner it's taken.
Of course, the people you'd expect to oppose this do - the religious right, the neocons, the anti-choice people, etc. - essentially anyone who thinks that if a penis will be inserted into a vagina for any reason, a child should result. They worry that this pill will lead to more unprotected sex, more pre-marital sex (because no married couples use birth control), etc. As usual, they couldn't be more wrong - countries where this is in use don't show marked increases in negative sociological factors - women use this pill when condoms break, when they're raped, and things like that - by and large, women who are either (a) actively trying to prevent pregnancies or (b) women who are assaulted. So how could it be a bad thing? It reduces abortions, helps younger women maintain control of their lives, and helps assault victims no have to deal with a lifelong commitment as a result of their assault.
If that was the whole story, it would just be another chapter in the "We're going to tell you that everything to do with sex is wrong, that we'd never do it, and we certainly won't provide you with any education or help in living a healthier life" story. But it gets worse.
There have been multiple resignations from the FDA over this pill, and now a GAO report comes out that accuses the politically appointees of interfering with the process that every drug goes through for purely ideological reasons. Mutliple teams of scientists and doctors have been ignored, and roadblocks which have never existed for any drug before are being thrown up. (And this from an administration that normally kowtows to the pharmaceutical companies.)
Sadly, this is just another step along a path designed to hurt women's health, and the end result, of course, will not be to reduce abortions or make people healthier, but to do the opposite while bible thumpers stand on their pulpits and scream about immorality and sin. Where's the immorality here, folks?
I have another blog for you to add to your list. As near as I can tell, the wise, attractive, and insightful folks at http://thinkingorsitting.blogspot.com are exactly the sort of Americans you hate. They don't like the President (I've seen them call him 'Chimpy McCokefiend'), and they think that you and your ilk are as dumb as the day is long. They seem to regularly point out inconsistencies and lies from Republicans, and they support websites like crooksandliars.com who distort the truth by publishing video of press conferences and tv appearances. They also say that our President is immature, ignorant, and a lying terrorist. Please make sure that you list them prominently among your enemies, for they truly are.
"I’m glad the smear sites made a big deal out of it. Now we can all know who was with the anti-military internet crowd. We’ll post the names of all who support the smear merchants on billoreilly.com. So check with us."
Bill, go ahead and add this blog to your list, you ignorant anti-American prick.
I'm taking the liberty of emailing the twit at firstname.lastname@example.org and letting him know. Hey - we can always use the publicity!
Alito argued against Roe
Nominee questioned legality in '85 form (link)
Audit Faults FDA on Morning-After Pill
By LAURAN NEERGAARDAP Medical Writer (link)
Lawmakers are again accusing the Food and Drug Administration of putting politics over science in the long-running saga over whether the morning-after pill should sell without a prescription. A congressional audit released Monday cited "unusual" steps in the FDA's initial rejection of over-the-counter emergency contraception, including conflicting accounts of whether top officials made the decision even before scientists finished reviewing the evidence.
Last week the House was trying to pass a new budget bill in order to help pay for the costs of Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Chimpy's mistress, TheWarOnTerra. Included in the bill, of course, were tax cuts for the wealthier - because, of course, when I'm out of money, my first plan is to cut my earnings - and spending cuts in programs which largely support the poor. What programs would be cut? Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicaid, Pension Insurance, Student Loan Programs, Child Support Programs, Deposit Insurance, Conservation Programs, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, Agricultural Price Support Programs, and Food Stamps. They'd also get extra revenue from drilling in ANWR and increased mining production, but we all know those companies need extra money.
So, if you're sick or hungry or trying to take care of unwanted kids or getting an education to better yourself or trying to save money to retire on or working to feed the country, well, there are some rich people that need tax cuts.
The bill got held up in the House because, apparently, some Republicans have hearts, albeit malformed and kinda squishy ones, and chose not to support that bill.
"You're denying resources to programs that serve the middle class and neediest of the needy on the eve of a projected vote to provide tax benefits and breaks to the most advantaged in our society," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y. He was one of the moderate Republicans who pressured leaders to modify the spending cuts. GOP leaders can't afford to lose many of their own, since the issue has energized Democratic opposition.
Of course, not everybody is on the same page. Some think that if Tom "The Ham Sandwich" DeLay were still running things, those weak Republicans would have been brought back into line, and the poor would be disregarded, as is only right and proper.
But what really got me was that, despite poll numbers (I'll comment on this elsewhere) that say the GOP is hurting in the leadup to next year's elections, and that the Liar-In-Chief is being told "thanks, but no thanks", when it comes to campaigning next year, some think that a bill like this doesn't matter.
Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which helps elect and re-elect GOP House members, says the spending cuts will be hard to use against Republicans.
"When was the last time that (a budget bill) was ever featured in a TV ad?" Forti said. "I don't believe that there are any political implications to this vote."
No political implications. For a bill that takes money out of the mouths of starving children and puts it in the pockets of the wealthy. Because I can't imagine anyone running an ad that goes something like this:
B&W: Mother, in dingy apartment. Crying child. Opens empty food cabinet. "I'm sorry honey, there's no more food right now. Daddy will be home soon, he said he'd stop at the store." Father comes in, clearly dejected. Wearing a threadbare suit. "I didn't get the job."
"Oh no, why not?"
"They said they wanted someone with a college degree. I explained that I had been in college, but my student loans got cut, and I couldn't afford to stay in, but that my grades were very good while I was there, but it didn't matter to them."
Child cries again.
"I couldn't get any more food stamps. I was told that we'd had our allotment, and it didn't matter that we've also been feeding your dad, because he lives with us after his pension fund got raided."
"Honey, what are we going to do?"
Child cries again, scene cut to driveway of big house. Big shiny new SUV pulls into the driveway. Kids come rushing out to meet Dad, who's got take-out bags from a restaurant. "Hey honey, come outside and look what I bought you with the new tax cut!"
Voice over - Congressman SOandSO voted for a budget which cut vital services for the poor, so one father can't go to school to get a job to feed his kids, and cut taxes for the rich, so another family can buy another new SUV...
Nope, no one would ever think of using that strategy...
Monday, November 14, 2005
Me, or your own lying eyes ... Joshua Holland
On OpinionJournal.com, Norman Podhoretz "debunks" the left's "lies" about how the Bushies spun us into
His piece is a well-researched round-up of all the people outside of the administration that thought that
That's because while they believed that
That's why Podhoretz's lengthy collection of quotes (even Ted Kennedy once said Saddam was a threat!) is immaterial: the lie was the "frame" of the debate itself, and a majority of Americans now know it. The real question wasn't whether or not the Iraqi government may have had some chemical weapons buried in the desert. The administration and hawks like Podhoretz made that debate into a proxy for the real question: does the Iraqi government have the weapons, the delivery system and, most importantly, the intent of attacking the
The answer --regardless of the spin -- was always maybe, no and no. But Americans heard "mushroom clouds," and they heard "seeking uranium" and they heard Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden used in the same sentence again and again. So whether or not Bush used the word "imminent" to describe the threat, or just words like "grave and growing," remains irrelevant.
And, it turns out that Americans -- 57 percent of them anyway -- aren't dumb enough to believe otherwise.
(reprinted with permission--Thanks, JH!)
(reprinted with permission--Thanks, JH!)
It isn't often when Charlie Krauthammer and I agree about something, and even in the article below there are moments where I could just as easily wring his neck as pat him on his miniature back. However, he is absolutely right about the crux of the matter...
NOTE: Krauthammer's call for a tax on gasoline is not a new idea (well *his* calling for a tax increase IS something new). John Anderson had exactly this idea (using much the same logic) in 1980 when he ran for president as an independent. He received over 6% of the popular vote.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
From an article written by Christina Kaufmann in The York Dispatch, the below quote comes from a school board member who resigned last year over their position and was sought for comment in the wake of Rev. (and who made this man a Rev. to begin with?) Pat Robertson's wack-job comment about God forsaking the people of that community. It's a classic, and sounds frighteningly like something I'd say. Methinks, in fact, I'll write it down somewhere.
Former school board member Jeff Brown, who resigned from the board more than a year ago in protest of his fellow board members' decision to add intelligent design to the science curriculum, said Robertson's comments contradict intelligent design proponents' testimony in federal court.
"According to sworn testimony, intelligent design has nothing to do with God," he said. "Then Pat Robertson says if you don't support it, God will hate you. These clowns want it both ways.
"I have a zero tolerance for sanctimonious morons who try to scare people."