StreeTalker Guest Blogs

THE COMFORT OF DISBELIEF

2008-11-23T06:58:00.000-08:00

by thebeerdoctor

There is something quite marvelous in modern American television. It allows the viewers to be constantly distracted. A plethora of topics is available to astound. There is a man having a baby, while another baby almost falls off a cliff. A book is returned to the public library after being overdue for fifty years. And what about the bold dress color, worn by the first lady of the President-elect, on their open house visit to what will be their residence for the next four years. Then there is The Economy. An unpleasant topic filled with stories of a Dow Industrial Average continually tanking, and the need for a bailout… no strike that, a rescue plan, that involves showing how much faith the federal government has in big businesses, and the assumed fantasy known as the free market system. This is where the American citizens are told to just surrender unto corporate Caesar what is their monetary (therefore, Divine) right to. And do not fret your precious little head over the details about how this rescue plan is to be implemented. There is no need for oversight. Instead of governance laws, there are not even rules, just simply, guidelines.

Neel Kashkari, the Treasury department Santa in charge of the bailout goody bag, opposed the FDIC proposal of using $24 billion to cut the mortgage payments for homeowners threatened with foreclosure. For these true recipients of the housing crisis, who truly feel the brunt of all of this, there is not even a stocking with a lump of coal.

People who attempt to put a civil face on this mess, will say that the money is being poorly targeted. I do not believe that for a second. The so-called focus of the bailout assumes there is public service altruism involved, and that it is good for the country. No, this is a robbery. Robbery on a grand scale, but robbery nonetheless. A working synopsis would be: the game, known as the free market credit system, has been busted by the ownership class, and now there is a frantic dash to destroy all evidence of their participation, by looting everything in sight, and, in the case of treasury tax law section 382, everything that still remains hidden.
“Poverty is the most urgent crisis facing the world,” says European Development Commissioner, Louis Michel. This is certainly not Job 1 for the rescue plan, where multi-billions have already been put into our financial system, supposedly to unleash lending. But without enforced stipulations on how this money was to be used, much of this went to paying executive bonuses and buying up smaller, and often profitable, banks.

The Congressional Democrats, along with some of their appalled Republican colleagues, found themselves aghast with a toothless give-away piece of legislation, where the only remedy was to compose angry letters to the Chief Executive Officers of the corporations who stand to benefit greatly from this U.S. government largesse. What were once investment banks are now holding banks. What was once a credit card company is now classified as a bank also.

Quite remarkable is the rapidity at which this new mindset of the government existing solely for the corporate elite, has been adopted by the population in general. The television liaisons of the ownership class, such as Oprah and Dr. Phil, comfort their audiences with reassurance, saying we are all in this together. Local news carries features on how to survive on a tightened (and getting tighter) budget. Learn how to turn down the thermostat on the heater, and where to download cost saving coupons from the internet!

The Republicans, in their recently failed election campaign, loved to cite Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the chief culprits in the housing mortgage crisis. In reality, those two quasi, now owned by, government backed entities account for only 40% of the mortgage system. To get an idea how the other 60% participated in this robbery, former Wall Street analyst Michael Lewis’ article titled The End, speaks volumes about how mortgage backed securities became an instrument for increasing wealth, by betting, therefore shorting, that those instruments would inevitably fail. As Lewis notes: “The juiciest shorts–the bonds ultimately backed by the mortgages most likely to default.”

“The loans would have been made by one of the more dubious mortgage lenders, Long Beach Financial, wholly owned by Washington Mutual, was a great example.”
It turns out: “Long Beach Financial was moving money out the door as fast as it could, few questions asked, in loans built to self destruct. It specialized in asking homeowners with bad credit and no proof of income to put no money down and defer interest payments for as long as possible. In Bakersfield, California, a Mexican strawberry picker with an income of $14,000 and no English was lent every penny he needed to buy a house for $720,000.”

What seems to be the most shocking for Michael Lewis was the extent of the crime. Writing about analyst Steve Eisman he states: “Eisman knew subprime lenders could be scumbags. What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism.”

One time junior accountant, Vince Daniel, saw this up close, while working for the once-upon-a-time Arthur Andersen, during an audit of Solomon Brothers: “I saw how the sausage was made in the economy, and it was really freaky.”

This could easily be applied to Meredith Whitney’s observations, around Halloween 2007, when the Oppenheimer Fund analyst announced that Citigroup would have to cut its dividends in order to remain operating. People were shocked, especially when it turned out to be true. Now, a little over a year later, Citigroup announced it would have to slash ten thousand jobs, for a start, with its stock price falling from $50 to under 10. The robbery that dare not speak its name, has been involved in nearly all of this.

This makes the denials of the participants even more appalling. The people in charge at these firms claim, not unlike much of the political leadership, that they were simply along for the ride and had no idea that the vehicle they were traveling in, was actually stolen.

But then there is always the matter of the corporate image to be considered. Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, it has been announced, will not be receiving any bonus to his $600,000 base salary, partially due to the firm’s participation in the $700 billion bailout. This seems only proper. Lucas van Praag, company spokesman said, “They believe its the right thing to do. We can’t ignore the fact that we are part of an industry that’s directly associated with the ongoing economic distress.”
What a remarkable admission. Never mind that Mr. Blankfein took in just under $70 million last year. The six hundred grand? The bare skin and bones take home pay? It will be tough, but he will manage somehow. It’s the right thing to do, like having a bowl of old fashioned oatmeal in the morning. And yes, they can’t ignore the fact that they are part of an industry… don’t you just love that word, industry? The big glass and steel building that manufactures these mysterious financial instruments, that are not only directly associated with the ongoing economic distress, but bloody near the cause of it all.

“CEO Lloyd Blankfein,” as Bethany McLean wrote in Fortune, “who took over last spring, gets credit for helping steer Goldman away from the most damaging investments. And Goldman which says it has limited exposure to the subprime mess, stands confirmed - for now, anyway - as the smartest bank on the Street.”
Of course these words of confidence were written before Goldman Sachs changed their operation mode (or modus operandi) from an investment bank to a holding bank. Which also makes me wonder if they were so smart in steering clear of the subprime mess, why are they receiving bailout money?

Unreality has its psychic advantages. If only President Bush could look into the Economy’s eyes and see its soul, and know it has a good heart. If only he could just call in an air strike and stop all this bleeding from these collateralized debt obligations. If only…

Late at night, when the other usual voices have gone to bed, you can hear the BBC radio world service, where commentators across the globe, speak of the present situation. There is not much mincing of words. They seem to know that we are in an economic global depression, whether anyone cares to admit or not. The air has been let out of the balloon, and people are genuinely worried.

As this unique winter of discontent approaches, I am strangely reminded of the song Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas, sung by Judy Garland, in the movie Meet Me In St. Louis. It seems that Ms. Garland and her future husband, the director Vincente Minnelli, found the original lyrics too depressing, and decided to change them. So did Chairman of the Board Frank Sinatra, who wanted to “jolly it up a bit” when he recorded the song in the 1950’s. But for myself, the original draft seems much more pertinent to our present situation.

Have yourself a merry little Christmas
It may be your last
Next year we may all be living in the past

No good times like the olden days
Happy golden days of yore
Faithful friends who were dear to us
will be near to us no more

But at least we will all be together
If the Lord allows
From now on we’ll have to muddle through somehow
So have yourself a merry little Christmas now

And that’s what Wall Street is all about Charlie Brown.

AN UNEASY BIRTHDAY

2008-11-07T05:53:00.000-08:00

November 6th, 2008 | by thebeerdoctor

The end of October and the beginning of November has always been a special time for me. Being born on All Saints Day, there has always been that morning after tie-in with Halloween. Never was this more acutely felt as in 1963, when on my way to school I saw the jack-o-lanterns set out for Friday’s garbage and became sad, until I realized it was also my birthday.

Years later I became aware of Malcolm Lowry’s novel Under The Volcano, which fictionally takes place on November 1, 1938. Add to that, the Day of the Dead, the Mayan Day of the Dead, Samhain Day, etc., and this period of time becomes rather personally significant. But never has this holiday period been under such pressure as that being generated this presidential election year.

It really does not matter that the Democratic candidate is really a centrist, non-ideological person. The fact that he is a man with a permanent tan… and that sadly, is what all the damn fuss is about.

Republicans especially, but independents also, will not admit that their trouble with Barack Obama is not because he is a radical child of the sixties (he most certainly is not), or that they just do not know him well enough. Which is particularly strange, because many of the people who got on board the runaway train known as George W. Bush, knew very little about him, except he seemed to relish his mandate from the state of Texas to enforce the death penalty. Oh and yes, his daddy is a former President. No, the real problem many have with Senator Obama is the realization that there is going to be a brother in charge. A national civic moment that finally says, it doesn’t matter what a person’s background is, what matters now is can they do the job or not.

Halloween night was unusually different. Senator Hillary Clinton appeared that day at a get-out-the-vote Obama rally, four and a half blocks from my house. The local neighborhood is clearly in the tank for Barry O. A McCain/Palin sign here is considered an aberration, usually posted by someone who is worried about their guns, or their lawn, or both. There is also the occasional right-to-life warrior. An issue driven concern for fetuses that is greater than actual babies being murdered in our far away wars. Folks of this persuasion will not even consider the notion that the best way to prevent abortions is to avoid circumstances which require their consideration. But that would involve sexual education, contraceptives and such. This is the real kicker: many anti-abortion advocates do not want anyone using contraceptives. Consider the Governor of Alaska’s inflexible position on this issue. It is not all surprising that her daughter finds herself with bump.

The uneasiness about the election makes many people nervous. Adding to this are the divisive remarks from Governor Palin, who seems hell bent on convincing the electorate that Senator Obama is a card carrying fellow traveler of terrorists. It quickly becomes apparent what the Republicans are up to. Unable to gloss over the mismanagement and incompetence of the Bush years, they choose to divert attention away by constructing a false, social-cultural war. Of course the McCain/Palin campaign claim nothing of the sort. Despite the fact that Mrs. Palin chose to quote Westbrook Pegler, a bona fide American fascist, during her infamous GOP convention speech. Later, when a few people did notice this, nobody seemed very concerned.
Television, both local and national, decided to broadcast many of the Alaska Governor’s unctuous stump speeches. To put it in her vernacular, they were tight little pointed packages of verbiage, designed to strike fear in the hearts of those with just enough audacity of hope, to actually question her supposed patriotic authority. This was ironic. The advancement of women in the workplace, now included creating an unapologetic demagogue.

Senator McCain for his part seem befuddled. Long before the economic crisis, he seemed off his game the first day he announced his vice- presidential pick. The kind of people that Sarah Palin pals around with (witch doctor, secessionist) added an exotic flare to her biography that was not exactly desirable. When shadow president Dick Cheney endorsed their ticket, a McCain supporter said to me: “we need that like we need a hole in the head.”

Despite it being often reported how much Barack Obama outspent Senator McCain, here in the local market the Republican based fear ads were everywhere. Where money really did make a difference was the boots on the ground, the so-called ground game. Here Obama’s people seemed omnipresent, continuously calling up for support, asking if you need help when going to vote. As late as the last hour before the polls closed, I saw Obama workers still knocking on doors. After witnessing this gargantuan effort, it is not surprising at all that Senator Obama won the state of Ohio. I am sure Indiana experienced similar actions. The McCain crowd, even the third part dreamers, could not match the hard work and tenacity of the Obama campaign. Why should they be surprised at the results?

But there is no way to describe, or simply convey, what happened on election night. This is something I will never experience again, after living over half a century on this earth. It all fell into place around 11pm, eastern standard time. The television news announced that Senator Barack Hussein Obama would be the next United States President.

I look over at my older brother, who says to me, using his Animal House language: “The war is over. Obama dropped the big one.”

I quickly went upstairs, knocked on the bedroom of my 82 year old mother. “Mom, I said, Barack Obama is the next President of the United States.”
There was a quiet joy on her face knowing that she lived long enough to see something occur that only a few years ago was said to be a complete impossibility. To know, to actually know, that destiny is not always predicted, that Providence, if you will, works in very mysterious ways.

I quickly made an exit from my house to the convenience store located a couple of blocks away. Being a beer consultant to non-alcohol drinking, middle eastern Americans, I have always been held in higher regard than I deserve.
“You predicted it.” Nasser said. The fiercely independent shop owner was abundantly happy, making reference to what I said a few days earlier, that Obama would win and it would all be over by midnight.

People in the store were shaking hands and giving hugs. Black people wandered in with a kind of happy shell shock. Damn! There is going to be a black man in the White House!

Nasser, feeling and looking magnanimous said: “What do you think of Barack Obama now?” and then, “The Beer Doctor predicted it.”
Which was all very flattering, but basically besides the point. My so-called analysis was simply based on the assumption that all the polls showed Senator Obama was ahead, and the only way for a McCain victory to happen would be if they were all wrong. The Harry Truman election was brought up briefly, but I said no, that won’t do, John McCain is not a sitting President.

Television, despite all the data, seemed to assume a say it isn’t so mode, right up to the end. This was understandable. TV has products to sell. A foregone conclusion can be a real marketing killer.

The expression tears of joy maybe foreign to many. But on this unforgettable night, I finally understood what that meant. Racism has always been an ugly backdrop growing up in the state of Ohio. My late father, a decent kind, thoughtful man, taught me at a very early age how ridiculous racism always was, even when to advocate this truth, you did so at your own peril. Even when I was only six years old, I thought the only race is the human race.

But considering that notion was difficult and sometimes dangerous. So many of the good people I lived around and their children that I played with, had essentially a racist viewpoint towards other parts of humanity. They justified dehumanizing black folks by claiming they were ignorant nigger monkeys. Wild animals as it were, ready on a moment’s notice , to come up the hill from the valley, to attack them unmercifully.

With such concentrated xenophobia, it is no revelation that my neighbors took comfort in their right to bear arms. After all, is that not what the second amendment is all about: guns to protect you against varmints? One good catholic family in the neighborhood took comfort and pride in knowing that a family member was in the National Guard, and that, in case of a riot, he could shoot niggers legally.

I kept my silence, knowing that the truth was a secret shared by my family only. Besides, our neighbors were good decent people, who happened to be racially insane. How did I know this? Well circumstantial evidence first and foremost. The most intelligent and talented kid at the elementary school I attended was black. For us other kids, he was a kind of oracle.

All of this unfinished business came flooding back that night Senator Obama became the President-elect. What a relief it was! To finally have the vindication that my fellow citizens are exactly that: my fellow citizens.
Perhaps this spells an end to the extreme right and extreme left, of the political spectrum. Those who have been driven by issues to the point of hardened cynicism, will have to reckon with the fact that sometimes justice actually does prevail, that human decency can eventually triumph.

This ship of state, through the unrelenting efforts of a community organizer, has been dragged over what was only recently considered an insurmountable mountain. All peace and blessings for that. These are new waters, in a new time, on which to sail.

Article IV: The Case for Impeachment of George W. Bush

2008-10-30T06:25:00.000-07:00

Article IV
MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSED AN
IMMINENT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States into believing that the nation of Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging
to our national security interests, thereby interfering with and obstructing Congress’s lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and declaring war.

The means used to implement this deception were and continue to be,first, allowing, authorizing and sanctioning the manipulation of intelligence analysis by those under his direction and control, including the Vice President and the Vice President’s agents, and second, personally making, or causing, authorizing and allowing to be made through highly-placed subordinates, including the President’s Chief of Staff, the White House Press Secretary and other White House spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National Security Advisor, and their deputies and spokespersons, false and fraudulent representations to the citizens of the United States and Congress regarding an alleged urgent threat posed by Iraq, statements that were halftrue, literally true but misleading, and/or made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, as well as omitting to state facts necessary to present an accurate picture of the truth as follows:

(A) Notwithstanding the complete absence of intelligence analysis to support a claim that Iraq posed an imminent or urgent threat to the United States and the intelligence community’s assessment that Iraq was in fact not likely to attack the United States unless it was itself attacked, President Bush, both personally and through his agents and subordinates, made, allowed and caused to be made repeated false representations to the citizens and Congress of the United States implying and explicitly stating that such a dire threat existed, including the following:

(1) “States such as these [Iraq, Iran and North Korea] and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.” —President Bush’s State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002.
(2) “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. He is amassing them to use against our friends our enemies and against us.” —Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention, August 26, 2002.
(3) “The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.” —Address of President Bush to the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002.
(4) “[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.” —Statement of Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Congress,September 19, 2002.
(5) “On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.. . . it has developed weapons of mass death.” —Statement of President Bush at White House, October 2, 2002.
(6) “But the President also believes that this problem has to be dealt with, and if the United Nations won’t deal with it, then the United States, with other likeminded nations, may have to deal with it. We would prefer not to go that route, but the danger is so great, with respect to Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and perhaps even terrorists getting hold of such weapons, that it is time for the international community to act, and if it doesn’t act, the President is prepared to act with likeminded nations.” —Statement of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell in interview with Ellen Ratner of Talk Radio News, October 30, 2002.
(7) “Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom.” —Speech by President Bush to Prague Atlantic Student Summit, November 20, 2002.
(8) “But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risk of any action we may be forced to take.”—President Bush Meets with National Economic Council at White House,February 25, 2003.
(B) In furtherance of his fraudulent effort to deceive Congress and the citizens of the United States into believing that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States, the President allowed and authorized those acting under his direction and control, including Vice President Richard B. Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Lewis Libby, who reportedly directly to both the President and the Vice President, among others, to pressure intelligence analysts to tailor their assessments and to create special units outside of, and unknown to, the intelligence community in order to secretly obtain unreliable information, to manufacture intelligence, or to reinterpret raw data in ways that would support the Bush administration’s plan to invade Iraq based on a false claim
of urgency despite the lack of justification for such a preemptive action.
(C) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By US Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information, which was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that:

(1) “Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.”
Thus the President willfully and falsely misrepresented Iraq as an urgent threat requiring immediate action thereby subverting the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 4000 United States service members; the injuries to tens of thousands of US soldiers; the deaths of more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $527 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt and the ultimate costs of the war between three trillion and five trillion dollars; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, the lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article IV notes
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By US Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information,” June 5, 2008. http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

John Judis, “The Selling of the Iraq War, The First Casualty,” New Republic, June 30, 2003. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm

John Conyers, Constitution in Crisis, Chapter Two, Chronology, 2005.http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/section2.pdf

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Former CIA Director George J. Tenet at Georgetown University,February 5, 2004. http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dci020504.html

Letter from Former CIA Director George Tenet to Senate Intelligence Committee, October 7, 2002. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021007-cia01.htm

President Bush’s State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention, August 26, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

Address of President Bush to the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

Testimony of Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to Senate Armed Services Committee, September 19, 2002. http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=287

Statement of President Bush at White House, October 2, 2002http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html

Statement of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell in Interview with Ellen Ratner, Talk Radio News,October 30, 2002. http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2002/14807.htm

Speech of President Bush to Prague Atlantic Student Summit, November 20, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021120-4.html

Remarks of President Bush to National Economic Council at White House, February 25, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/images/20030225-6_econ-022403-d-ed-1-515h.html

John Conyers, Constitution in Crisis, Chapter 3, 2005. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/section3b.pdf

Gilbert Burnham, et al, “Mortality After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq,” The Lancet, October 11, 2006. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo2.pdf

Amy Belasco, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,”

Congressional Research Service, March 14, 2007. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo3.pdf

Lawrence Korb, “A Troop Readiness Crisis, Boston Globe, April 11, 2007. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo4.pdf

Article III: The case for Impeachment of George W. Bush

2008-10-27T16:54:00.000-07:00

Article III
MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSSESSED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, SO AS TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed instead a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States into believing that the nation of Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, thereby interfering with and obstructing
Congress’s lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and declaring war.

The means used to implement this deception were and continue to be personally making, or causing, authorizing and allowing to be made through highly-placed subordinates, including the President’s Chief of Staff, the White House Press Secretary and other White House spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National Security Advisor, and their deputies and spokespersons, false and fraudulent representations to the citizens of the United States and Congress regarding Iraq’s alleged possession of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that were half-true, literally true but misleading, and/or made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, as well as omitting to state facts necessary to present an accurate picture of the truth as follows:

Article III(A)
Long before the March 19, 2003 invasion of Iraq, a wealth of intelligence informed the President and those under his direction and control that Iraq’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed well before 1998 and that there was little, if any, credible intelligence that showed otherwise. As reported in the Washington Post in March of 2003, in 1995, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law Hussein Kamel had informed US and British intelligence officers that “all weapons—biological,
chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.” In September 2002, the Defense
Intelligence Agency issued a report that concluded: “A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions…[T]here is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has-or will-establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

Notwithstanding the absence of evidence proving that such stockpiles existed and in direct contradiction to substantial evidence that showed they did not exist, the President and his subordinates and agents made numerous false representations claiming with certainty that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons that it was developing to use to attack the United States, to wit:

(1) “[T]he notion of a Saddam Hussein with his great oil wealth, with his inventory that he already has of biological and chemical weapons… is, I think, a frightening proposition for anybody who thinks about it.” —Statement of Vice President Cheney on CBS’s Face the Nation, March 24,2002.
(2) “In defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.” —Speech of President Bush, October 5, 2002.
(3) “All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicles with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland.” —Statement by President Bush from the White House, February 6, 2003.
(B) Despite overwhelming intelligence in the form of statements and reports filed by and on behalf of the CIA, the State Department and the IAEA, The 35 Articles of Impeachment among others, which indicated that the claim was untrue, the President,
and those under his direction and control, made numerous representations claiming and implying through misleading language that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger in order to falsely buttress its argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, including:

(1) “The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so.” —Statement of President Bush from White House, October 2, 2002.
(2) “The [Iraqi] report also failed to deal with issues which have arisen since 1998, including: . . attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it.” —Letter from President Bush to Vice President Cheney and the Senate, January 20, 2003.
(3) “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” —President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003.
(C) Despite overwhelming evidence in the form of reports by nuclear weapons experts from the Energy, the Defense and State Departments, as well from outside and international agencies which assessed that aluminum tubes the Iraqis were purchasing were not suitable for nuclear centrifuge use and were, on the contrary, identical to ones used in rockets already being manufactured by the Iraqis, the President, and those under his direction and control, persisted in making numerous false and fraudulent representations implying and stating explicitly that the Iraqis were purchasing the tubes for use in a nuclear weapons program, to wit:

(1) “We do know that there have been shipments going . . . into Iraq…of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools [sic] that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.” —Statement of then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, September 8, 2002.
(2) “Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” —President Bush’s State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003.
(3) “[H]e has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed…. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most US experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.” —Speech of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations, February 5, 2003.
(D) The President, both personally and acting through those under his direction and control, suppressed material information, selectively declassified information for the improper purposes of retaliating against a whistleblower and presenting a misleading picture of the alleged threat from Iraq, facilitated the exposure of the identity of a covert CIA operative and thereafter not only failed to investigate the improper leaks of classified information from within his administration, but also failed to cooperate with an investigation into possible federal violations resulting from this activity and, finally, entirely undermined the prosecution by commuting
the sentence of Lewis Libby citing false and insubstantial grounds, all in an effort to prevent Congress and the citizens of the United States from discovering the fraudulent nature of the President’s claimed justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
(E) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By US Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information, which was released on June 5,2008, concluded that:

(1) “Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.”
(2) “The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.”
(3) Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller concluded: “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.” The President has subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 4000 United States service members and the injury to tens of thousands of US soldiers;
the loss of more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt with a long term financial cost of between three and five trillion dollars; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, the lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article III notes
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By US Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information,” June 5, 2008. http://intelligence. senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf
Iraq on the Record, “Bush Administration’s Public Statements about Chemical and Biological Weapons,” March 16, 2004http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp?viewAll=1&Subject=Chemical+and+Biological
+Weapons&submit=display

Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, “President Clings to Dubious Allegations about Iraq,” The Washington Post, March 17, 2003. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42517-2003-Mar17?language=printer

Statement of Vice President Cheney on Face the Nation, March 24, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/newsspeeches/speeches/vp20020324-1.html

Radio Address of President Bush to the Nation, October 5, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html

Statement by President Bush from the White House, February 6, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-17.html

Congressman John Conyers, “George W. Bush versus the US Constitution,” 2006. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis

Statement of President Bush from White House, October 2, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

President Bush’s State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Iraq on the Record Report, “The Bush Administration’s Public Statements on Iraq,” by Minority Staff, March 16, 2004, 10-13. http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_
rep.pdf .

Statement of then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, September 8, 2003. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses UN Security Council, February 5, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Murray Waas, “Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic, National Journal, July 3, 2006. http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm

Elizabeth de la Vega, “Final Jeopardy,” TomDispatch.com, April 9, 2006. http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76008de_la_vega_on_the_president_s_final_jeopardy_question

Letter from Representative Henry Waxman to then White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, July 14, 2005. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20050714122956-30175.pdf

Letter from Representative Henry Waxman to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, March 16, 2007. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070316154127-11403.pdf

Letter from Representative Henry Waxman to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, December 3, 2007.http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071203103022.pdf

Jon Ponder, “Did Bush Lie to Federal Investigators in the CIA Leak Case?” Pensito Review, November 21,2007. http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/11/21/did-bush-lie-to-fitzgerald-too1 Gilbert Burnham, et al, “Mortality After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq,” October 11, 2006, The Lancet. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo2.pdf .

Amy Belasco, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,”Congressional Research Service, March 14, 2007. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo3.pdf

Lawrence Korb, “A Troop Readiness Crisis,” Boston Globe, April 11, 2007. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo4.pdf

Article II: The case for Impeachment of George W. Bush

2008-10-22T05:56:00.000-07:00

Article II

FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT
AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States into believing that there was and is a connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the attacks of September 11, 2001 and al Qaeda, on the other hand, so as to falsely justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner that is damaging to the national security interests of the United States, as well as to fraudulently obtain and maintain congressional authorization and funding for the use of such military force against Iraq, thereby interfering with and obstructing Congress’s lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and declaring war. The means used to implement this deception were and continue to be, first, allowing, authorizing and sanctioning the manipulation of intelligence analysis by those under his direction and control, including the Vice President and the Vice President’s agents, and second, personally making, or causing, authorizing and allowing to be made through highly-placed subordinates, including the President’s Chief of Staff, the White House Press Secretary and The 35 Articles of Impeachment other White House spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National Security Advisor, and their deputies and spokespersons, false and fraudulent representations to the citizens of the United States and Congress regarding an alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq, on the one hand, and the September 11th attacks and al Qaeda, on the other hand, that were half-true, literally true but misleading, and/or made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, as well as omitting to state facts necessary to present an accurate picture of the truth as follows:

(A) On or about September 12, 2001, former terrorism advisor Richard Clarke personally informed the President that neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq was responsible for the September 11th attacks. On September 18, Clarke submitted to the President’s National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice a memo he had written in response to George W. Bush’s specific request that stated: (1) the case for linking Hussein to the September 11th attacks was weak; (2) only anecdotal evidence linked Hussein to al Qaeda; (3) Osama Bin Laden resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein; and (4) there was no confirmed reporting of Saddam Hussein cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons.

(B) Ten days after the September 11th attacks the President received a President’s Daily Briefing which indicated that the US intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was “scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.”

(C) In Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002, the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein–Al Qaeda conspiracy: “Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

D) The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate gave a “Low Confidence” rating to the notion of whether “in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qaeda.” The CIA never informed the President that there was an operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; on the contrary, its most “aggressive” analysis contained in “Iraq and al-Qaeda-Interpreting a Murky Relationship” dated June 21, 2002 “was that Iraq had had sporadic, wary contacts with Al Qaeda since the mid-1990s rather than a relationship with al Qaeda that has developed over time.”

(E) Notwithstanding his knowledge that neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq was in any way connected to the September 11th attacks, the President allowed and authorized those acting under his direction and control, including Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Lewis Libby, who reported directly to both the President and the Vice President, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, among others, to pressure intelligence analysts to alter their assessments and to create special units outside of, and unknown to, the intelligence community in order to secretly obtain unreliable information, to manufacture intelligence or reinterpret raw data in ways that would further the Bush administration’s goal of fraudulently establishing a relationship not only between Iraq and al Qaeda, but between Iraq and the attacks of September 11th.

(F) Further, despite his full awareness that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no relationship to the September 11th attacks, the President, and those acting under his direction and control have, since at least 2002 and continuing to the present, repeatedly issued public statements deliberately worded to mislead, words calculated in their implication to bring unrelated actors and circumstances into an artificially contrived reality thereby facilitating the systematic deception of Congress and the American people. Thus the public and some members of Congress, came to believe, falsely, that there was a connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. This was accomplished through well-publicized statements by the Bush Administration which contrived to continually tie Iraq and 9/11 in the same statements of grave concern without making an explicit charge:

(1) “[If ] Iraq regimes [sic] continues to defy us, and the world, we will move deliberately, yet decisively, to hold Iraq to account…It’s a new world we’re in. We used to think two oceans could separate us from an enemy. On that tragic day, September the 11th, 2001, we found out that’s not the case. We found out this great land of liberty and of freedom and of justice is vulnerable. And therefore we must do everything we can—everything we can—to secure the homeland, to make us safe.” Speech of President Bush in Iowa on September 16, 2002.

(2) “With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to The 35 Articles of Impeachment terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.” —March 6, 2003, Statement of President Bush in National Press Conference.

(3) “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001—and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men—the shock troops of a hateful ideology—gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of
one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.” —May 1, 2003, Speech of President Bush on USS Abraham Lincoln.

(4) “Now we’re in a new and unprecedented war against violent Islamic extremists. This is an ideological conflict we face against murderers and killers who try to impose their will. These are the people that attacked us on September the 11th and killed nearly 3,000 people. The stakes are high, and once again, we have had to change our strategic thinking. The major battleground in this war is Iraq.” —June 28, 2007, Speech of President Bush at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.

(G) Notwithstanding his knowledge that there was no credible evidence of a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and that the intelligence community had specifically assessed that there was no such operational relationship, the President, both personally and through his subordinates and agents, has repeatedly falsely represented, both explicitly and implicitly, and through the misleading use of selectively-chosen facts, to the citizens of the United States and to the Congress that there was and is such an ongoing operational relationship, to wit:

(1) “We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” —September 28, 2002, Weekly Radio Address of President Bush to the Nation.

(2) “[W]e we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind.” —October 14, 2002, Remarks by President Bush in Michigan.

(3) “We know he’s got ties with al Qaeda.” —November 1, 2002, Speech of President Bush in New Hampshire.

(4) “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.” —January 28, 2003, President Bush’s State of the Union Address.

(5) “[W]hat I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network…” —February 5, 2003, Speech of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations.

(6) “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on…. [T]he liberation of Iraq… removed an ally of al Qaeda.” —May 1, 2003, Speech of President Bush on US S. Abraham Lincoln

(H) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By US Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information, which was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that:

(1) “Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.”

(2) “The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.” Through his participation and instance in the breathtaking scope of this deception, the President has used the highest office of trust to wage of campaign of deception of such sophistication as to deliberately subvert the national security interests of the United States. His dishonesty set the stage for the loss of more than 4000 United States service members; injuries to tens of thousands of soldiers, the loss of more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $527 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt and the ultimate expenditure of three to five trillion dollars for all costs covering the war; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, the lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article II notesSenate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By US
Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information, June 5, 2008. http://intelligence.
senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf
Iraq on the Record Report: “The Bush Administration’s Public Statements on Iraq, by Minority Staff,”
March 16, 2004. http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.
pdf
Elizabeth de la Vega, “White House Criminal Conspiracy,” The Nation, November 14, 2005. http://www.
thenation.com/doc/20051114/delavega .
Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, New York, Free Press, 2004.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Report, Section 10.3, September 20,
2004. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm
Waas, Murray, “Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel,” National Journal 22 November 2005.
Jehl, Douglas, “Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts,” New York Times, November 6,
2005.
“Declassified Key Judgments from National Intelligence Estimate,” October 2002. http://www.fas.org/irp/
cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, (305-307. 321-323), July 9, 2004. http://intelligence.
senate.gov/prewar.pdf
Office of the Inspector General’s Review of the Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Undersecretary
of Defense for Policy, Executive Summary, February 9, 2007. http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/
supporting/2007/SASC.DODIGFeithreport.040507.pdf
Pincus, Walter and Priest, Dana. “Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits.” Washington Post,
June 5, 2003: A01.
Hersh, Seymour M. “The Stovepipe.” The New Yorker, October 27, 2003.
Speech of President Bush in Davenport, Iowa, September 16, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2002/09/20020916-2.html

Article II
Remarks of President Bush in National Press Conference, March 6, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
Speech of President Bush aboard USS. Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html
Speech of President Bush at Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, June, 28, 2007. http://www.
whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070628-14.html
Iraq on the Record Report: Bush Administration’s Public Statements on Iraq, by Minority Staff; Iraq-al
Qaeda connection; March 16, 2004. http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp?viewAll
=1&Subject=Al%2DQaeda&submit=display
Radio Address by President Bush to the Nation, September 28, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2002/09/20020928.html
Remarks by President Bush in Waterford, Michigan, October 14, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2002/10/20021014-4.html
Remarks by President Bush in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, November 1, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.
gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021101-5.html
President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses UN Security Council, February 5, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.
gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
Speech of President Bush aboard USS. Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) Casualty Status, Department of Defense. http://kucinich.house.gov/
UploadedFiles/clo1.pdf
Gilbert Burnham, et al, “Mortality After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, The Lancet, October 11, 2006. http://
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo2.pdf
Amy Belasco, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,”
Congressional Research Service, March 14, 2007. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo3.pdf
Lawrence Korb, “A troop readiness crisis,” Boston Globe, April 11, 2007. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/
clo4.pdf

The Case for Impeachment of George W. Bush

2008-10-20T19:30:00.000-07:00

In the following weeks I will be posting the full 35 Articles Of Impeachment presented to Congress by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). To read the full Articles of Impeachment along with opening remarks and quotable quotes go here.

Article I
CREATING A SECRET PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN
TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE
FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush,in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda program to manufacture a false cause for war against Iraq.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has engaged in a years-long secret domestic propaganda campaign to promote the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This secret program was defended by the White House Press Secretary following its exposure. This program follows the pattern of crimes detailed in Article I, II, IV and VIII. The mission of this program placed it within the field controlled by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a White House task-force formed in August 2002 to market an invasion of Iraq to the American people.

The group included Karl Rove, I. Lewis Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Stephen Hadley, Nicholas E. Calio, and James R. Wilkinson. The WHIG produced white papers detailing so-called intelligence of Iraq’s nuclear threat that later proved to be false. This supposed intelligence included the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger as well as the claim that the high strength aluminum tubes Iraq purchased from China were to be used for the sole purpose of building centrifuges to enrich uranium. Unlike the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, the WHIG’s white papers provided “gripping images and stories” and used “literary license” with intelligence. The WHIG’s white papers were written at the same time and by the same people as speeches and talking points prepared for President Bush
and some of his top officials.

The WHIG also organized a media blitz in which, between September 7-8, 2002, President Bush and his top advisers appeared on numerous interviews and all provided similarly gripping images about the possibility of nuclear attack by Iraq. The timing was no coincidence, as Andrew Card explained in an interview regarding waiting until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

September 7-8, 2002:

NBC’s Meet the Press: Vice President Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.

CNN: Then-National Security Adviser Rice said, regarding the likelihood of Iraq obtaining a nuclear weapon, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

CBS: President Bush declared that Saddam was “six months away from developing a weapon,” and cited satellite photos of construction in Iraq where weapons inspectors once visited as evidence that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear arms.

The Pentagon military analyst propaganda program was revealed in an April 20, 2002, New York Times article. The program illegally involved “covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties.”

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recruited 75 retired military officers and gave them talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC, and according to the New York Times report, which has not been disputed by the Pentagon or the White House, “Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.”

According to the Pentagon’s own internal documents, the military analysts were considered “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who would deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.” In fact, they did deliver the themes and the messages but did not reveal that the Pentagon had provided them with their talking points. Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and Fox News military analyst described this as follows: “It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.’”

Article I

Congress has restricted annual appropriations bills since 1951 with this language: “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.”

A March 21, 2005, report by the Congressional Research Service states that publicity or propaganda” is defined by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2)purely partisan activity, or (3) “covert propaganda.”

These concerns about “covert propaganda” were also the basis for the GAO’s standard for determining when government-funded video news releases are illegal:

“The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the viewing audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual -- the essential fact of attribution is missing.”

The White House’s own Office of Legal Council stated in a memorandum written in 2005 following the controversy over the Armstrong Williams scandal:

“Over the years, GAO has interpreted ‘publicity or propaganda’ restrictions to preclude use of appropriated funds for, among other things, so-called ‘covert propaganda.’ ... Consistent with that view, the OLC determined in 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for ‘publicity or propaganda’ precluded undisclosed agency funding of advocacy by third-party groups. We stated that ‘covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties’ would run afoul of restrictions on using appropriated funds for ‘propaganda.’”

Asked about the Pentagon’s propaganda program at White House press briefing in April 2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino defended it, not by arguing that it was legal but by suggesting that it “should” be: “Look, I didn’t know look, I think that you guys should take a step back and look at this look, DOD has made a decision, they’ve decided to stop this program. But I would say that one of the things that we try to do in the administration is get The 35 Articles of Impeachment information out to a variety of people so that everybody else can call them and ask their opinion about something. And I don’t think that that should be against the law. And I think that it’s absolutely appropriate to provide information to people who are seeking it and are going to be providing their opinions on it. It doesn’t necessarily mean that all of those military analysts ever agreed with the administration. I think you can go back and look and think that a lot of their analysis was pretty tough on the administration. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t talk to people.”

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article I notes

David Barstow, Behind TV Analysts: Pentagon’s Hidden Hand, New York Times, April 20, 2008.”

Center for Media and Democracy, “Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law.”

Joshua Bolton, “Memorandum For Heads of Departments and Agencies: Use of Government Funds for Video News Releases, March 11, 2005.”

Steven G. Bradbury, “Memorandum For The General Counsels of the Executive Branch, March 1, 2005.

Carl Levin, Letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, April 22, 2008.

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro’s letter to major news outlets asking them to disclose Ethics Standards for Military Analysts, April 24, 2008.

NBC Meet the Press, Interview with Dick Cheney, September 8, 2002.

“Parts of the Message Machine: Excerpts from Documents,” New York Times, April 19, 2008.

Rep. Paul Hodes, “Congressman Hodes Calls for Hearing on Bush Administration Manipulation of Iraq War News Analysts,” April 24, 2008.

David Barstow, “Two Inquiries Set on Pentagon Publicity Effort,” New York Times, May 24, 2008.

The Bailout and What's Next

2008-10-01T12:00:00.000-07:00

Yesterday marked a day that will go down in history, when Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike took on full responsibility to protect the interests of taxpaying Americans, and defeated the deceptive bail out bill, defying the dictates of the Administration, the House Majority Leadership, the House Minority Leadership and the special interests on Wall Street.

Obviously Congress must consider quickly another course. There are immediate issues which demand attention and responsible action by the Congress so that the taxpayers, their assets, and their futures are protected.

We MUST do something to protect millions of Americans whose homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions are at risk in a financial system that has become seriously corrupted. We are told that we must stabilize markets in order for the people to be protected. I think we need to protect peoples' homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions, to order to stabilize the market.

We cannot delay taking action. But the action must benefit all Americans, not just a privileged few. Otherwise, more plans will fail, and the financial security of everyone will be at risk.

The $700 billion bailout would have added to our existing unbearable load of national debt, trade deficits, and the cost of paying for the war. It would have been a disaster for the American public and the government for decades and maybe even centuries to come.

To be sure, there are many different reasons why people voted against the bailout. The legislation did not regard in any meaningful way the plight of millions of Americans who are about to lose their homes. It did nothing to strengthen existing regulatory structures or impose new ones at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve in order to protect investors. There were no direct protections for bank depositors. There was nothing to stop further speculation, which is what brought us into this mess in the first place.

This was a bailout for some firms (and investors) on Wall Street, with the idea that in doing so there would be certain, unspecified, general benefits to the economy.

This is a perfect time to open a broader discussion about our financial system, especially our monetary system. Such a discussion is like searching for a needle in a haystack, and then, upon finding it, discussing its qualities at great length. Let me briefly describe the haystack instead.

Here is a very quick explanation of the $700 billion bailout within the context of the mechanics of our monetary and banking system:

The taxpayers loan money to the banks. But the taxpayers do not have the money. So we have to borrow it from the banks to give it back to the banks. But the banks do not have the money to loan to the government. So they create it into existence (through a mechanism called fractional reserve) and then loan it to us, at interest, so we can then give it back to them.

Confused?

This is the system. This is the standard mechanism used to expand the money supply on a daily basis not a special one designed only for the "$700 billion" transaction. People will explain this to you in many different ways, but this is what it comes down to.

The banks needed Congress' approval. Of course in this topsy turvy world, it is the banks which set the terms of the money they are borrowing from the taxpayers. And what do we get for this transaction? Long term debt enslavement of our country. We get to pay back to the banks trillions of dollars ($700 billion with compounded interest) and the banks give us their bad debt which they cull from everywhere in the world.

Who could turn down a deal like this? I did.

The globalization of the debt puts the United States in the position that in order to repay the money that we borrow from the banks (for the banks) we could be forced to accept International Monetary Fund dictates which involve cutting health, social security benefits and all other social spending in addition to reducing wages and exploiting our natural resources. This inevitably leads to a loss of economic, social and political freedom.

Under the failed $700 billion bailout plan, Wall Street's profits are Wall Street's profits and Wall Street's losses are the taxpayers' losses. Profits are capitalized. Losses are socialized.

We are at a teachable moment on matters of money and finance. In the coming days and weeks, I will share with you thoughts about what can be done to take us not just in a new direction, but in a new direction which is just.

Dennis Kucinich
www.Kucinich.us
216-252-9000 877-933-6647

PS Watch the 47 minute 'Money as Debt' animated documentary in http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279. This is a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system. Let me know what you think.

John McCain vs. John McCain

2008-09-30T21:11:00.000-07:00

See the latest McCain Vs. McCain video.

This one is on the current financial crisis and the economy.

Slacker Uprising

2008-09-29T18:43:00.000-07:00

Download for free Michael Moore's newest film "Slacker Uprising".
See the trailer here.

Michael Moore, who brought us the great documentry productions of Roger and Me, Canadian Bacon, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and now Slacker Uprising, is giving away this, his latest film for free to anyone who signs up for the download.

I did not realize I was part of the Slacker Uprising until I started watching the film. A large group of friends and I went to see Michael Moore in Nashville during the 2004 presidential campaign. I remember that the arena had not sold very many seats, and so had only prepared as small portion of the auditorium for the anticipated crowd. But there were thousands of walk ups. Thousands.

It was a wonderful evening. We cheered and laughed and cried a bit. We went away feeling like it might actually be possible to defeat GWB. Unfortunately, we did not realize how Americans are so inclined to vote against their own self interest.

Turn Turn Turn.

Third Party Candidates to Debate 'Real Priorities' at Vanderbilt University

2008-09-29T18:24:00.000-07:00

9.30.08 Nashville, TN:

The Coalition for October Debate Alternatives (CODA) announced today the Presidential Candidate's Alternative Debate to take place October 6th, in Nashville, Tennessee. The debate is open to all third party candidates for President in the United States as well as the major party nominees. The debate, which is scheduled to take place on the campus of Vanderbilt University on Monday, October 6th will feature several Presidential Candidates who have confirmed attendance including Brad Lyttle of the US Pacifist Party, Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party, Frank McEnulty of the New American Independence Party and Brian Moore of the Socialist Party. The Constitution Party has also confirmed that Presidential Candidate Chuck Baldwin or Vice Presidential Candidate Darrell Castle will attend the event.

The debate, which is being organized by CODA has been in the making for several months and is scheduled to take place on Monday, October 6th at 7:00pm, one day prior to the Presidential Debates which are happening at Belmont University in Nashville on October 7th. CODA says that many of the Presidential candidates have been excluded from attending the Belmont debate.

In a recent release to the press CODA indicated that is was organizing the alternative debate because it believed that voters deserve to hear from all the candidates if they are going to make an informed choice at the ballot box, " While we want to hear what the major party candidates have to say on issues related to the war, health care, the economy, gas prices, the future direction of the military, civil liberties and the environment, we do not believe that most issues of concern to American voters will be touched by the Democrat-Republican debate. That is why we are organizing an alternative debate so that voters in Nashville, Tennessee and beyond may be informed of all their choices as they participate in America's electoral process."

The general public and the media is invited to attend this event, which will begin at 7pm on the campus of Vanderbilt University in Nashville. The moderator for the event will be Bruce Barry, a professor at the Owen School of Management at Vanderbilt.

Chris Lugo, of the Coalition for October Debate Alternatives, said that the Democratic and Republican candidates have also been invited to the event, but have not indicated an interest in attending, "We believe that voters should make a fully informed choice about who they vote for and we do not believe this is possible if they are only hearing from two candidates. We have invited the Barack Obama and John McCain in the interest of fairness, but we are intending to highlight this alternative debate as the most egalitarian possible event by including all the candidates and promoting this as an event to which everyone is invited."

Presidential Candidate's Alternative Debate
Vanderbilt University
4309 Stevenson Center
Nashville, TN 37240

Monday October 6th
Candidate's Debate 7:00pm - 9:00pm

Light Reception to Follow Debate

For more information visit:

http://calendar.vanderbilt.edu/calendar/2008/10/06/us-presidential-debate-the-alternatives

GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK

2008-09-01T10:08:00.000-07:00

This will be the last thing I post on the 2008 presidential election. If only I could embrace the airbrushed narratives put forward by the candidates and follow them with unquestioning support. Being a writer prevents this from happening. The more the matter is researched, the more you discover the glaring disconnect between what is being purported, and what is actually realized. Such is the nature of the beast. The shadow that falls over the idea.

Much has been made over who said what on all sorts of subjects. A weird language has developed. A lexicon of assumptions. Whether “the surge” has worked is hardly ever questioned, because consensus has decided that it does. What kind of “foreign policy expert” is Senator Joseph Biden? No need to ask. He simply is one, like Senator McCain is a “genuine war hero”.

Senator Barack Obama has a special place in American political history. Win or lose, he has ushered in a new paradigm, simply by not being the same complexion. He has had to go through extraordinary hoops, in order to assure Caucasian voters that he is not scary, or all that much different than them. Of course Senator McCain must, despite all the mumble about honor, proceed to convince those very same voters that Senator Obama is their worst nightmare.

Research makes the disconnect from these candidates very tough. The pundits of television news tell me that Joe Biden has middle class values. Then I discover that the tough Senator with all the foreign policy gravitas, is in fact a head cheerleader for the MNBA corporation, the giant credit-card company, who successfully sought to change the bankruptcy laws, so as to extract even more cash from those who have suffered economic catastrophe… those common folks that Senator Biden claims to champion.

In fact, all the pancakes in this election claim to be championing the needs of the people. Obama/Biden claim to know where the right war is, in Afghanistan and the no-man’s land surrounding it. Supporters of this ticket, who think the junior Senator from Illinois is a peace candidate, should remember that Obama calls for more troops and more military spending, “to finish the job”, as they say with great hubris.
With McCain/Palin you have a ticket that believes American force is the best way to get the rascals to obey. The Governor of Alaska says: “a ship is safe in the harbor, but that’s not why a ship was built”. Both she and the Arizona senator believe fighting is necessary and inevitable, in a world becoming darker everyday. A reader of the “left behind” science-fiction-Christian books, Sarah Palin also believes that abortion is an abomination to God. Her fifth child, her second son, born with down syndrome; will be applauded by those who believe all fetuses should come to term. Her first son, enlisted in the infantry, September 11, 2007, will soon be proudly stationed in Iraq. And yes, I have been told to accept that other assumption that he is over there, “fighting for my freedom”.

If you then look at the alternatives to the Two Party candidates, it becomes a lesson on futility. Ralph Nader, a forthright advocate of speaking truth to power, only offers the possibility of a protest vote, which on the face of it, is quite ridiculous when you consider that those in power are not even listening. The 2006 mid-term election was a referendum on the Iraq occupation which the democratically elected congress refused to address. The Green and Libertarian parties, with Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr as candidates, offers up little more than congressional retreads.

No one can really be serious about challenging established power because no one has the kind of money needed to get started. As Cecil Taylor once said: “the dry cell of money has locked the minds and cauterized hearts.” Every election cycle, the economic entrance becomes costlier. The Presidential Pageant Election is an indulgence of the very wealthy. The chosen candidates are their well groomed race horses, which the plebeian observers are suppose to care about. The “issues” which are said to be important, lose their significance once the voter makes their highly emotional decision. This decision can be prompted by a candidate’s appeal, or just as easily by an intense desire to vote against the other.

This is the political condition that this country finds itself in. It is not a very pretty sight. Some people will kid themselves into believing that they actually have some say. Others will throw up their hands and cry : what’s the use?
Whether you choose to participate in the pageant or not, one fact remains: the permanent government. It will continue. Good night and good luck.

Sept. 1st- Loofah Day

2008-08-17T19:53:00.000-07:00

Whereas millions of Americans despise Bill O'Reilly as a loathsome polluter of the airwaves, fanning ignorance and hatred with every word he utters,

Whereas no opportunity should be missed to expose this contemptible scoundrel to ridicule,

Whereas at 11.06 pm on September 1, 2004 the above-mentioned O'Reilly made a lewd phone call to his Fox producer Andrea Mackris, depicting a prospective sexual encounter between the two of them in which "You would basically be in the shower and then I would come in and I'd join you and you would have your back to me and I would take the little loofa thing… and kinda' soap your back … and I would put it around front, kinda' rub your tummy with it and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard… 'cuz I like that and you have really spectacular boobs….I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda kissing your neck from behind… and then the other hand with the felafel thing"….

Whereas this conversation was recorded by Ms Mackriss and subsequently exposed to public scrutiny in court documents,

Whereas this engendered mirth among the millions of O'Reilly haters and much satisfaction at his humiliation,

Be it proclaimed that September 1, 2008 will be recognized as Loofah Day and citizens should honor it by proceeding at noon to the nearest Fox studio with a loofah and, standing outside the Fox studio, brandish said loofahs in mirthfull derision of O'Reilly.

sent in by kddove

ELECTION IN A TIME OF UNCERTAINTY

2008-08-04T18:41:00.000-07:00

It is coming down to crunch time in the U.S. presidential election, and the nation is in the grasp of incredible uncertainty. The mind numbing occupation of Iraq still continues, and neither of the two leading candidates will say exactly when this insanity will end; only ambiguous time tables , or time horizons, are floated out there, with caveats of “when conditions on the ground make withdrawal possible” or “when the mission is brought to completion”.

For John McCain it is all about winning, or at least not losing. A part of the Arizona Senator believes that with enough fire power, boots on the ground, and bribery of important local militias, the situation can be made manageable.

For Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator tries to assume the moral high ground by saying he was against this war from the start. But as veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk has noted: “what does Obama want to do with his soldiers once he withdraws them from Iraq? He’s going to send the poor devils back to Afghanistan, that graveyard of foreign armies where the Taliban were so utterly defeated in 2001 that they are now stronger than ever.”

Uncertainty has become the lay of the land. The economic troubles, so exacerbated by petrol inflation, has lead to massive job loss, home evictions and bankruptcies. What were once seen as aberrations, have now become standard signs of the spiraling down economy. The main response from Senator McCain to the oil crisis is to drill drill drill! Senator Obama speaks of a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, and even mentioned swift boat funder T. Boone Pickens, who said: “this is a crisis we can not drill our way out of.”

How any of these suggestions will lower the price of gasoline is any body’s guess. The higher the price of gasoline, the more the profits of Big Oil increase. Exxon-Mobil’s recent quarterly earnings were the largest in history. Senator Obama mentions this, but how he would be able to get taxes on Big Oil through the legislature remains to be seen.

Then there is the business of the election itself. The McCain campaign have made it their number one focus to try an impugn Obama’s character as much as possible, by any means necessary, so as to plant xenophobic seeds of doubt that they hope will grow in the minds of the electorate, until they become convinced that the ambitious graduate of Harvard Law is not “one of us” and not ready to lead.

It has also been noted that black Americans are uneasy about Barack Obama’s candidacy. Not because they don’t support him, they do. But there is an uncertainty among plenty of folks, who have difficulty imagining him actually accomplishing this historic task, and fear their hearts will be broken, by hook or crook, or something even worse.

One thing that seems to have disappeared is the idea of any kind of landslide victory. That is why some democrats say that Senator Obama should choose Senator Clinton for the vice presidential ticket. Hard core Obamakins would howl of course, but they may just have to get over it.

Historically it should be remembered that John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were not good friends, when he was picked as JFK’s running mate. And it should also be remembered, that with Lyndon on the ticket, Kennedy won the state of Texas. Without winning that state, in that very close election, John Kennedy would have never become the President. It just might be that Senator Obama faces a similar dilemma in this election.

It is worth noting that Hillary Clinton won the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, among others. She proved to be strong among older white women in those states. These are votes that Barack Obama will certainly need, in the event of a very close election.

This all may seem strange to those who bought into the idea of a new kind of politics. But Senator Obama has proven, with many recent reversals in policy, to be in fact, a flexible, pragmatic politician. Conventional wisdom has it that he will pick for VP a governor or senator from a state that seems to be in play. But many of the people glowingly mentioned by the mainstream news are somewhat unknown to the general public. By contrast, everybody knows Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Watch Impeachment Hearings

2008-08-02T05:01:00.000-07:00

These Representatives need our support. The GOP smear machines are pouring money into campaigns in many of their districts to try to stop them from proceeding with hearings. Stand up for the Constitution and against the abuse of presidential power by the Bush administration.

Kucinich enters hearing to cheers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2MWTh0QF40

Rep. Robert Wexler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1ojrKhp6E

Rep. Steve King:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eZxCloEbQk

Rep. Jerrold Nadler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL7259BAP9s

Rep. Dennis Kucinich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRAcenaTVkQ

Bruce Fein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80IphtHrFzg

Vincent Bugliosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU

Bruce Fein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXyDK2-p4fU

Vincent Bugliosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q53p34yzZac

Vincent Bugliosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7abu9a0xtNI

Rep. Baldwin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFNmanXtZ9o

More Videos here >
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35061

SOME MATTER MORE - WHEN 47 VICTIMS ARE WORTH 43 WORDS

2008-07-24T13:42:00.000-07:00

sent in by: kddove

JULY 22, 2008
SOME MATTER MORE - WHEN 47 VICTIMS ARE WORTH 43 WORDS

Bad Form
In his classic work, Obedience to Authority, psychologist Stanley Milgram observed:

"There is always some element of bad form in objecting to the destructive course of events, or indeed, in making it a topic of conversation. Thus, in Nazi Germany, even among those most closely identified with the 'final solution', it was considered an act of discourtesy to talk about the killings." (Milgram, Obedience to Authority, Pinter & Martin, 1974, p.204)

The same "bad form" is very much discouraged in our own society. One would hardly guess from media reporting that Britain and America are responsible for killing anyone in Iraq and Afghanistan, where violence is typically blamed on "insurgents" and "sectarian conflict". International "coalition" forces are depicted as peacekeepers using minimum violence as a last resort.

In reporting the November 2005 Haditha massacre, in which 24 Iraqi civilians were murdered by US troops, Newsweek suggested that the scale of the tragedy "should not be exaggerated". Why?

"America still fields what is arguably the most disciplined, humane military force in history, a model of restraint compared with ancient armies that wallowed in the spoils of war or even more-modern armies that heedlessly killed civilians and prisoners." (Evan Thomas and Scott Johnson, 'Probing Bloodbath,' Newsweek, June 12, 2006; http://www.newsweek.com/id/52312/page/1)

The truth was revealed in a single moment of unthinking honesty by a senior US Army commander involved in planning the November 2004 Falluja offensive and convinced of its necessity. He visited the city afterward and declared:

"My God, what are the folks who live here going to say when they see this?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/ weekinreview/04burns.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all)

The answer was provided by physician Mahammad J. Haded, director of an Iraqi refugee centre, who was in Falluja during the US onslaught:

"The city is today totally ruined. Falluja is our Dresden in Iraq... The population is full of rage." (http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-awad100305.htm)

In July 2005, the Independent commented on US actions in Iraq:

"The American army's use of its massive fire-power is so unrestrained that all US military operations are in reality the collective punishment of whole districts, towns and cities." (Patrick Cockburn, 'We must avoid the terrorist trap,' The Independent, July 11, 2005)

In April 2004, the Daily Telegraph reported the disgust of senior British army commanders in Iraq with the "heavy-handed and disproportionate" military tactics used by US forces, who view Iraqis "as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life... their attitude toward the Iraqis is tragic, it is awful." (Sean Rayment, 'US tactics condemned by British officers', Defence Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, April 11, 2004)

Burying The Bride
The anonymous commanders' comments generalise to both British and American media reporting.

In July, Afghan investigators in Nangarhar, Afghanistan, told the AFP news agency that they had been shown the "bloodied clothes of women and children" killed in a July 6 US air strike. The attack was reported to have killed 47 civilian members of a wedding party, including 39 women and children, with nine wounded. The head of the team, Burhanullah Shinwari, deputy speaker of Afghanistan's senate, said: "They were all civilians and had no links with Taliban or Al-Qaeda." (http://afp.google.com/article/ ALeqM5joXBRRzFwxSG_I-Ucf34VMr379hQ)

Around ten people were reported still missing, believed buried under rubble. It is now estimated that 52 people were killed - the same number that died in the London suicide attacks of July 7, 2005. Another member of the team, Mohammad Asif Shinwari, said there were only three men among the dead and the rest were women and children. Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire reports that eight of the victims were between 14 and 18 years of age. (http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/ Anotherweddingpartymassacre_July62008.html). The US military initially claimed only "militants" involved in mortar attacks had been killed.

A separate investigation into a July 4 strike in the northeastern province of Nuristan found that 17 civilians had been killed there. The coalition claimed they had killed several militants who were fleeing after attacking a base. But an Afghan official again confirmed that the victims were "all civilians." (http://afp.google.com/article/ ALeqM5joXBRRzFwxSG_I-Ucf34VMr379hQ) Afghan authorities said the dead included two doctors and two midwives who had been attempting to leave the area to escape military operations.

Air Force Times reports that allied warplanes are currently dropping a record number of bombs on Afghanistan. For the first half of 2008, aircraft dropped 1,853 bombs - more than they released during all of 2006 and more than half of 2007's total. But this only hints at the true extent of the slaughter. The figures do not include cannon rounds shot by fighters or AC-130 gunships, Hellfire and other small rockets launched by warplanes and drones, and assaults by helicopters. Air Force Times comments:

"In close-quarter firefights where friendly soldiers could be wounded if bombs are used, cannon fire and missiles are often the preferred alternative." (Bruce Rolfsen, 'Afghanistan hit by record number of bombs,' Air Force Times, July 18, 2008;
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news /2008/07/airforce_bomb_oef_071708/)

The response of the UK press to these latest atrocities is a case study in censorship by omission.

On July 12, the Guardian devoted 307 words to the attack on the wedding party. The killing of 39 women and children was not considered front page news - the story was buried on page 30. (Mohammad Rafiq Jalalabad, 'US air strike killed 47 civilians, says Afghan government,' The Guardian, July 12, 2008)

On the same day, a 490-word article in the Times focused on the fate of nine British troops injured when a US helicopter accidentally targeted them in a "friendly fire" incident. Six of the nine soldiers have since returned to duty, with three still receiving medical treatment. While 447 words were devoted to this story, the article concluded with two sentences totalling 43 words on the killing of the Afghan civilians:

"However, 47 civilians, most of them women and children, were killed when a US aircraft bombed a wedding party in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, an Afghan government investigation has concluded. The nine-man investigation team found that only civilians were hit during the airstrike." (Dominic Kennedy and Michael Evans, 'Friendly fire inquiry to investigate messages from troops,' The Times, July 12, 2008)

At time of writing there have been five mentions of the 47 deaths in UK national quality newspapers.

Media reports on Western victims of terrorist or insurgent attacks typically provide detailed information on the names, backgrounds and personal histories of the victims. When the first female British soldier, Sarah Bryant, was killed in Afghanistan on June 17, the media poured forth details about her life. The BBC website showed pictures of Bryant's wedding and devoted an article to moving tributes from her husband, father, mother, commanding officer, unit commander, friends and colleagues. A friend of the family described Bryant: "A hundred per cent feminine, very pretty, very unassuming, a natural person, very happy - the sort of person that when she was in a room, it lit up." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/uk_news/7463470.stm)

Bryant, recall, was a combatant. The depth of focus changes for Iraqi and Afghan non-combatant victims of US-UK violence. In a BBC online article, Martin Patience reported the July 6 attack:

"Regional officials said the casualties were attending a wedding party and that the bride had been killed." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7502137.stm)

We wrote to Patience (July 14), noting that he had reported that the bride had been among the victims. We asked him why he had not mentioned that fully 39 of the victims were women and children. He responded:

"I accept your point about not mentioning women and children, although, in my defence, the story was linked to the new story and I didn't necessarily want to repeat the details." (Email to Media Lens, July 14)

We wrote back:

"Thanks for your response, I appreciate it. But something doesn't add up. How often did the media provide us with the personal details - name, gender, photo, education, work lives, loved ones, aspirations - of the victims of the July 7 bomb attacks in London? [See here: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/ uk/05/london_blasts/victims/default.stm] The July 6 atrocity in Afghanistan has been reported a tiny handful of times in the press. Why would you be concerned about repeating the fact that almost all of the victims were women and children?" (Email, July 14)

We received no further reply but, to its credit, the BBC did subsequently publish an excellent piece on the July 6 attack: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7504574.stm

Patience had earlier reported: "the latest claim of civilian casualties puts yet more pressure on the Afghan authorities and international forces to get it right when carrying out operations." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7492195.stm)

The reference to the need for "international forces" to "get it right" might sound like neutral language. But imagine if a journalist had commented in August 1990 that claims of civilian casualties had put "yet more pressure on Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi forces to get it right when carrying out operations in Kuwait." The bias suddenly becomes very clear.

Militants And Mistakes
On July 12, Leonard Doyle of the Independent reported:

"The UN said last month that nearly 700 Afghan civilians had lost their lives in Afghanistan this year, about two-thirds in attacks by militants and about 255 in military operations." (Doyle, 'US to investigate air strike that killed 47 Afghan civilians,' The Independent, July 12, 2008)

From this, we were presumably to understand that the "militants" are not conducting "military operations", and Afghan government/"coalition" forces conducting "military operations" are not "militants".

The point being that "militant" is a pejorative term used by journalists to suggest illegitimacy. In June 1999, the BBC reported that "Kosovo Albanians have been welcoming the return of armed KLA soldiers." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/369239.stm) KLA insurgents fighting Serbian forces were supported by the West and were regularly described as "soldiers" rather than "militants" or "insurgents". The British media have similarly referred to the "Chechen resistance" fighting the Russian army. Ironically, British and American journalists also commonly referred to Afghan forces fighting the 1979-1989 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as "resistance fighters" and "freedom fighters" (See our media alert: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/ 07/071120_invasion_a_comparison.php). The use of such terms is of course inconceivable in US-UK reporting of the current occupation.

On the rare occasions when US-UK atrocities are discussed, they are invariably described as blunders rather than crimes. On July 13, Alastair Leithead commented on the BBC's evening news:

"It's these mistakes that cost the US the support of the [Afghan] people."

In September 2004, the BBC's Nicholas Witchell reported on BBC TV news from Baghdad:

"As is so often the case in this conflict it's the Iraqi civilian population which suffers the greatest loss of life - either as a result of mistakes by the Americans, or, far more frequently, of course, as a result of the bombs and the bullets of the insurgents." (Witchell, BBC1, 18:00 News, September 30, 2004)

The bias could hardly be more transparent - we kill civilians only by "mistake", our enemies do not. Noam Chomsky comments:

"The more vulgar apologists for U.S. and Israeli crimes solemnly explain that, while Arabs purposely kill people, the U.S. and Israel, being democratic societies, do not intend to do so. Their killings are just accidental ones, hence not at the level of moral depravity of their adversaries." (Noam Chomsky, 'Terrorists wanted the world over.' February 26, 2008; http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174899)

As Chomsky notes we can distinguish three categories of crimes: murder with intent, accidental killing, and murder with foreknowledge but without specific intent. When Israel's High Court authorised intense collective punishment of the people of Gaza by depriving them of electricity, when Bill Clinton bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998 in Sudan supplying half the country's drugs, and when Bush and Blair invaded Iraq, the devastating consequences for civilians were predictable, but ignored.

Certainly it is reprehensible to kill with intent. But is it any better to kill without intent when the likely consequences for our victims are so irrelevant that they do not even enter our minds? The point being, as Chomsky writes, that Western elites really do appear to regard Third World peoples "much as we do the ants we crush while walking down a street. We are aware that it is likely to happen (if we bother to think about it), but we do not intend to kill them because they are not worthy of such consideration." (Ibid)

When we assemble the different pieces of the media jigsaw puzzle, clear patterns emerge. Western victims are presented as real, important people with names, families, hopes and dreams. Iraqi and Afghan victims of British and American violence are anonymous, nameless. They are depicted as distant shadowy figures without personalities, feelings or families.

The result is that Westerners are consistently humanised, while non-Westerners are portrayed as lesser versions of humanity.

SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Open Letter To Congress: Impeach Bush/Cheney

2008-07-23T20:43:00.000-07:00

Dear Congress:

I am writing to remind you that you swore an oath when you took office. You swore that you would defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In order to fulfil your sworn duty and your obligation to the citizens of these United States, you must support the movement to impeach the President and the Vice President.

It is clear that there is sufficient cause to impeach.

1. They lied about the Iraqi threat to start an aggressive war against a sovereign nation that was not a treat to us. They knowingly distorted intelligence reports and ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo substantiate that they "fixed" intelligence around a pre-determined policy of preemptive war.

Results: 1,000,000 Iraqi civilian deaths; over 4000 U.S. soldiers dead in two wars, 100s of thousands wounded.

2. Article VI of the Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter is "the supreme Law of the Land." This war has been shown to be a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime. A war of aggression not initiated out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN, is a violation of international law and constitutes an impeachable offense.

3. A report on May 19, 2006, by the United Nations Convention Against Torture concluded that the US should not send suspects to countries where they face a risk of torture, since that would violate international law. This administration has approved of (and Attorney General Gonzales re-defined) torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and elsewhere, while simultaneously opposing the International Criminal Court established to check such abuses. According to Amnesty International, the United States has established a Soviet-style "gulag" of torture around the world. Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture. The "torture memos," is evidence of their involvement in the mistreatment of prisoners violating US and international law. The act of ignoring the Geneva Conventions this administration, is culpable for war crimes, and as such that constitutes an impeachable offense.

4. This administration actively spied with warrantless electronic surveillance on American citizens. By authorizing warrantless domestic wiretapping, President Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without legal basis, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense.

5. It has been shown that the President and the Vice President participated in the leaking of the identity of a covert CIA operative, jeopardizing her life and her operative’s lives. Their work involved tracking yellow cake uranium used in making dirty bombs that could be used to attack us on our own soil. By exposing the agent’s identity and thereby destroying our ability to circumvent such an attack is clearly aiding and abetting our enemies. This is Treason. Impeachment is insufficient punishment for this crime.

6. By commutting Libby's sentence in the case involving outting a CIA agent; a case in which the president himself may be involved, impeachment was warranted.

7. The Libby investigation revealed the prosecution and subsequent conviction, during an election season, of Georgia Thompson for corruption, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit immediately reversed because the prosecution's evidence was "beyond thin." Another federal prosecutor in connection with the Jack Abramoff Guam investigation was unexpectedly demoted and removed from office. These and other firings were intended to influence investigations and election outcomes and is comparable to the “Saturday Night Massacre”, in which the Nixon administration fired Archibald Cox while he was investigating the alleged misconduct by the White House in the Watergate scandal. Blocking an investigation ordered by Congress was an impeachable offense then, and it still is.

You have given your oath to defend us against all enemies. This administration, this president and vice president have repeatedly committed acts that are impeachable. Do not stand aside and allow these actions to go unchecked.

This is not about your party affiliation.

This is about insuring that no future president may cite the Bush administrations actions as a precedent for future abuses to our rights, liberties, and safety. You must act to remove this president and vice president from office, even if it takes until the last day of their term.

PeaceMonger

Letter to Rush Limbaugh from Ralph Nader

2008-07-11T05:33:00.000-07:00

Sent in by kddove:

WASHINGTON, July 10----Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader today released the following letter to radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh
The Rush Limbaugh Show
2 Penn Plaza
New York, NY 10121

Dear Mr. Limbaugh,

The Associated Press reports your new contract with Premiere Radio Networks will enrich you with at least $38 million a year over the next eight years. You are making this money on the public property of the American people for which you pay no rent.

You, Rush Limbaugh, are on welfare.

As you know, the public airwaves belong to the American people. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to be our trustee in managing this property. The people are the landlords and the radio and TV stations and affiliated companies are the tenants.

The problem is that since the Radio Act of 1927 these corporate tenants have been massively more powerful in Washington, DC than the tens of millions of listeners and viewers. The result has been no payment of rent by the stations for the value of their license to broadcast. You and your company are using the public's valuable property for free. This freeloading on the backs of the American people is called corporate welfare.

It is way past due for the super-rich capitalist--Rush Limbaugh from Cape Girardeau, Missouri--to get himself off big time welfare. It is way past due for Rush Limbaugh as the Kingboy of corporatist radio to set a capitalist example for his peers and pay rent to the American people for the very lucrative use of their property.

You need not wait for the broadcast industry-indentured FCC and Congress to do the right thing. You can lead by paying a voluntary rent--determined by a reputable appraisal organization--for the time you use on the hundreds of stations that carry your words each weekday.

Payment of rent for the use of public airwaves owned by the American people is the conservative position. Real conservatives oppose corporate welfare. Real corporatists feed voraciously from hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare gushing out of Washington, DC yearly.

Whose side are you on? Freeloading? Or paying rent for the public property you have been using free for many years?

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

Muslim Protest Take II

2008-06-28T11:54:00.000-07:00

See What the protests were about and when. Sent in by kddove

'Religion of Peace Demonstration Images

2008-06-23T21:07:00.000-07:00

These pictures are of Muslims marching through the streets of London during their recent 'Religion of Peace Demonstration.'

from an email sent by Betsy.

WILL IT EVER END?

2008-06-22T21:34:00.000-07:00

It really is all about oil. This is where the neoconservative and neoliberal visions merge. After the hell fire that President Bush ignited by invading Iraq, causing many thousands of unnecessary deaths, now there is talk of bringing in big corporate oil companies, to get those valuable resources under control. Ah yes, the holy blessings of the free market (Barack Obama is a believer, he himself has said it) that will unleash the entrepreneurial spirit (John McCain is also a believer, he himself has said it) of profit and efficiency.

If the truth be told, the United States government did not give a damn about what Saddam Hussein did to his subjects. During the cold war, the Central Intelligence Agency helped him to be a handy anti-communist tool. Not even when Iraq nationalized its oil supply did relations with Washington go sour. It should be remembered that Saddam Hussein defied the OPEC embargo of the 1970’s, and sold oil to the United States. No, that did not stop the love fest. When Iraq attacked Iran, the United States sided with Saddam, because the US government wanted some pay back for the hostage crisis.

No, what tore it , between Saddam Hussein and Washington, was when he demanded euros instead of dollars for the oil. This would never do. And besides, George Bush knew Saddam was a bad man, he tried to kill his daddy.

The current estimate is that the US spends $138 billion annually on protecting the oil supplies, a figure that continues to increase. Despite all the patriotic pandering about bringing democracy to the world, the control of oil is what all this slaughter is truly about. But should it be? The real question is: by what constitutional mandate is the government given the right to interfere with the sovereignty of other nations. Sovereign nations who may have bad governments (don’t we?) and problems, but are what they always are, their own.

That is why the presidential process has become such a disappointment. Neither McCain or Obama are willing to do the proper constitutional mandate of withdrawing our troops from foreign entanglements. Instead they argue over who knows the best way to fiddle. Both want to increase military spending. Both want to keep pushing around the world.

All of this partisan pagaent politics is a huge distraction from realizing this country’s constitutional crisis. Both Republicans and Democrats are evading this, hoping that fear, uncertainty, doubt, will win over the gullible before they realize that the country they live in, the country they have been told, all of their lives, that holds so much promise… that country no longer exists.

Neoliberalism like neoconservatism has delusions of empire. After the guns comes the carpetbaggers. Control of fossil fuels is a brutal industry, whether it is Nigeria or The Baltic States. For many, oil is the only business, and everything must be sacrificed: human rights, environment, the rule of law, in order for the flow to be continuous. If continuous war is a consequence, so be it. A disasterous policy to be sure, but for for those on top of this pyramid, who cares? There is still plenty of money to be made.

I recently found a picture of an Iraqi Muslim family celebrating Christmas. They are wearing their Santa hats and smiling, in front of their Christmas tree.
I look again at the photograph and ask myself: why, with all that is holy, would anyone want to blow these people up? That is of course the problem of this world. Politicians justify savagery and call it being strong.

A BIPARTISAN NEED FOR LIBERTY

2008-06-16T04:29:00.000-07:00

By: thebeerdoctor

The reaction was to be expected from those accustomed to the daily cat and mouse game called politics. The experts always know. That is why Representative Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment were ridiculed as worthless, "a waste of time" from a "annoying gnat". While the movers and shakers of his own political party have more important matters to attend to than defending the Constitution and the rule of law.

Something ironically similar was happening across the pond, in the United Kingdom.
That is where Gordon Brown's Labour party government is trying to enact a law that enables the government to hold terror suspects, or as they say, persons of interest, for 42 days without any redress. Tory Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, resigned from the House of Commons in disgust.

"I had always viewed membership of this House as a noble endeavor," said David Davis. "Not least because we and our forebears defended the fundamental freedoms of our citizens. Or we did, up until yesterday."

"This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta --the document that guarantees that most fundamental of British freedoms-- Habeus Corpus."

Here in the United States, I begin to wonder how many people still remember that the Magna Carta is the root document of the United States Constitution. It is where it was officially established that no one is to be above the law. As Winston Churchill said in 1956: "here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break."

Evidently, this is not the case for President Bush, who attempts to shrug off the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of detainees, simply because it was a 5-4 decision. Senator Barack Obama said the Supreme Court ruling refutes "the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole in Guantanamo." But that legal black hole most certainly exists, simply by making the false claim that human legal standards do not apply to military tribunals. Yes, it is what it is: a breathtaking argument for legalized torture.

Meanwhile, over in England, David Davis has remarked that the British have "the most intrusive identity card system in the world. A CCTV camera for every 14 citizens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with thousands of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it... the creation of a database state opening our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers..."

It is wise to remember that these objections to the Orwellian order, come from a conservative Tory member. That is also why Dennis Kucinich said his articles of impeachment were not about politics, but the rule of Constitutional law. How strange that a few persons in high powerful positions think it is perfectly acceptable to ignore the law upon which all of western civilization is based: the liberty of its citizens. A state sponsored abolition of basic freedoms becomes a final victory for terror. To say you are defending freedom by destroying it, using the cafard of security, is to be sure, very strange indeed.

I'm Voting Republican

2008-06-15T12:00:00.000-07:00

Sent in by: Kddove

A short video giving reasons to vote Republican.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

2008-06-09T19:08:00.000-07:00

By thebeerdoctor

It is hard for some to imagine, but Senator Barack Obama may turn out to be the perfect candidate for the neo-conservative agenda. His recent speech at the AIPAC conference revealed a harder line than that of Vice President Dick Cheney, when it comes to the Middle East. He offered this caveat: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

That is a very dangerous sore to pick if there is going to be any hope for any kind of peace. A complete denial of the Palestinians to East Jerusalem has been a point of contention for decades. Why did Obama say this? Was it to prove to this hawkish Zionist advocate group that he totally gets their agenda?

“Let me be clear, said Senator Obama, “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non negotiable.”

Sacrosanct? Last time I heard that phrase was back in the 1980’s, when General Alexander Haig said that about the defense budget. What a twisted notion our political leaders have about the security of the United States. Both of the main parties think it is perfectly acceptable to tie our destiny to another country, supposedly as a defensive posture, but in reality it is just a means to continue the armaments industries. As Senator Obama said: “As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade–investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation.”

$30 billion over a decade? That’s $3 billion dollars a year. An increase in American largese that underlines the fact that the United States government is simply not interested in avoiding foreign entanglements. Exporting more weapons sows the seeds of future conflicts, which alas, is the most hideous cynical reason of all.

Senator Obama claims he wants to end the war in Iraq, but does he really? The plan to build fifty permanent bases there, already in the works, will undoubtedly continue, no matter who is elected president. That iron triangle that John McCain used to speak of, is being embraced in a truly bipartisan way. The privatization of the military will also continue. Senator Obama refuses to endorse H.R. 4102, the Stop Outsourcing Security Act. A brief exchange with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman, revealed that the junior Senator from Illinois has not only a talent for lofty rhetoric, but also equivocation:

Sen. Barack Obama: Here’s the problem. We have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of these with US troops, we can’t draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops. So what I want to do is draw–I want them out in the same way we make sure that we draw out our own combat troops, alright? I mean, I–

Amy Goodman: Not a ban?

Sen. Barack Obama: Well, I don’t want to replace these contractors with more US troops, because we don’t have them, alright? But this was a speech about the economy.

Amy Goodman: The war is costing $3 trillion, according to Stiglitz.

Sen. Barack Obama: That’s what–I know, which I made a speech about last week. Thank you.

On the Barack Obama web site it states: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.”

This all sounds well and good, until you get to the next sentence: “He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

Enough is enough. Despite the pageant thrills of electing the first black President, when you examine the double speak on foreign policy, you’ll find that any rumors about correcting the military-industrial-congressional complex are greatly exaggerated, to say the least. How ironic that Senator Obama used the phrase from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the fierce urgency of now, to explain the reason for his presidential campaign. It should always be remembered that Dr. King used those words in a speech denouncing the Vietnam War. It would have been grand if Senator Obama would have applied some of those peace and justice principles, when he addressed the AIPAC conference. But that is asking too much. He looks good. He talks well. But he is really just a politician. If elected, he may bring about some domestic reform and just might restore some our stolen liberties. But his pandering about Iran being a threat to us, even makes that seem dubious. Obama supporters who denounced Senator Clinton before she quit, use to say: She’ll say anything in order to get elected. Senator Obama’s performance at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, proved him to be the same.

FINDING A DIFFERENT WAY

2008-05-30T06:08:00.000-07:00

Television misinforms everyday. It is part of the corporate mission to keep the customers (i.e. consumers) in a constant state of agitation. Agitation works. Being dissatisfied is a perfect state to foist upon you new products, or sometimes simply new concepts, that you did not know about until you found that you must have them, no matter what. Movies. I-Phones. Drugs for conditions that you were unaware existed. Restless Consumer Syndrome. Ask your doctor if RCS is right for you.

Sadly, the corporate huckster approach is applied to nearly everything. Politics, militarism, you name it, becomes a package that often has to be repackaged. Media consultants, bloggers, pundits, and celebrities become an essential part of the mix, creating illusions within delusions. Mission Accomplished. Doing a heck of a job. Victory with honor, dead or alive.
Unfortunately, reality has a way of exposing its fangs. There is an energy crisis. It is exacerbated by the Iraq occupation, along with the other missions, as they are called, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The agitated customers become even more restless when they discover it now costs real money to run their automobiles.

But the corporate state is not interested in any kind of national response. If there was such a thing, you would have the President of The United States declaring a national emergency. Saving and reducing fossil fuel use would be job 1. Natural gas would be nationalized. Extravagant indulgences such as stock car racing would be banned. Other recreational indulgences, such as all terrain vehicles and boats, would have to pay an extra tax for their waste. The automobile as consumer fetish would be seen for what it truly is: an unnecessary marketing gimmick. The use of lawnmowers would be reviewed.

Of course none of this is going to happen. Especially in the "you are going to feel some pressure" form I speak of here. American culture is simply too fond of corporate branding and the way of life it implies. The capitalist cornucopia promised, is what President Bush called "our way of life" that they (the evil ones) hate us for. The freedom to shop till you drop. But even that has become more difficult recently. The rising price of food is partially blowback for the increased use of Biofuels. As Geoffrey Lean of The Independent pointed out: "Just one fill-up of a 4x4's tank with ethanol uses enough grain to feed one person for a year."

The squeeze is on in one form or another, for everyone accept those of the ownership class. The political response to this situation, has so far, been incredibly lame. The so-called economic Darwinism that free marketeers wax poetic about, what the late Hunter Thompson called "the punishment ethic" embraced so readily by the Republican party, has become in fact, a security threat to the stability of this nation. How this country is more secure by a having a substantial segment of the citizenry squeezed to the point of monetary oblivion, is truly incomprehensible.

The same can be said for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If this was about oil, then the amount of money wasted on this war, could have purchased all the oil needed, without all the loss of life. But if that wasn't the point, then the neocon abstraction of "coercive democracy" as Scott McClellan put it, becomes the cruelest reason of all. Outrage at this stage, is a moot point.

If the United States, which spends more on weapons than nearly the rest of the world combined, would redirect all that energy to constructive purposes, the economic outlook would change, and certainly for the better. The need for infrastructural improvements is like a house literally screaming to be painted. The expansion of intelligent technologies brought about by the mass production of optical components and the improvements wrought from digital measurement... these areas of development are still in their infancy.

Strangely, despite all the information that is easily available, both current and historic, there is an astonishing number of people who are misinformed. Calculated misinformation has been perpetrated by those seeking to further their false agendas. As a result, we have people who believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks, and that the Muslim faith is out to destroy America. The internet, and especially Google, is what you make use of it for. Obviously it can be a tool for education, probably the greatest in human history. Or, it can be used for games, social netweorking and of course, porn.

When it comes to open source applications for the internet, the majority of American desktop computer users are just not that interested. I once mentioned that most of the problems with electronic voting is caused by using proprietary software. The puzzled response to this was like I had arrived from another planet. Come to think of it, maybe I have.

If the goal is, not only for this country, but the entire planet, a prosperous survival, then finding a different way is not only necessary, it is vital. The old time dishonored responses of ideological violence have become as useless as they are dangerous. This is difficult for some to grasp how many easily accepted notions, were nothing more than unconscious myths. We are certainly in unfamiliar territory. The road maps of the twentieth century are obsolete.

You Scum, Scott McClellan. Why did you wait so long?

2008-05-29T01:00:00.000-07:00

I received this, as did thousands of others from Congressman Robert Wexler:
--------------------------------------------
Last night, significant news broke that directly impacts our push for Impeachment Hearings and a possible Inherent Contempt charge for Bush Administration officials such as Karl Rove:

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has revealed in his upcoming book that:

• Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Vice President Cheney lied about their role in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson – actions easily amounting to obstruction of Justice.
-------------------------------------------

Easily amounting to obstruction of justice? Are you kidding me? Clinton was impeached over the definition of the word “is”. We the People spent $70 million of tax payer’s money to determine the origin of a stain on a blue dress. Rove, Libby, and Cheney participated in outing a covert CIA agent. An agent that specialized in making sure Iran did not get nuclear weapons. [1]

United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

It seems to me that outing a CIA agent that is working to prevent a nation our President has termed “Evil” from getting nuclear weapons is giving the aid to our enemies. Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Vice President Cheney should all be immediately be investigated by Congress on charges of Treason.

It seems only fair if found guilty, to sentence them to death just as this Texas herd of criminals has imposed the ultimate penalty on so many on Texas’ death row.
--------------------------------------------

McClellan also admitted that:

• There was a coordinated effort within the Bush Administration to use propaganda to pump up the case for the Iraq war and hide the projected costs of the war from the public.

--------------------------------------------

The Bush administration paid reporters to tilt their reporting to support administration policies on several occasions. [2] If they would be so under handed as to pay for spin on “No Child Left Behind”, a bogus issue to distract people; then is it a stretch at all to think that they intentionally fed the MSM the exact text and tone of the message they wanted the American people to get? Just look back at the TV footage. Every network uses the same buzz words. Every major network used similar graphics and banners that conveyed not only overt propaganda supplied by this administration, the images and sound bites used were designed to send subliminal messages of fear.

Fear to keep us in line 9/11. Fear to make us follow their lead 9/11 to where ever they want to go. Fear of the world 9/11…Has one day yet gone by that they have not said or referred to 9/11?

As for the cost of the war, what profit is there in making it quick?
--------------------------------------------

Scott McClellan must be called to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee to tell Congress and the American people everything he knows about this massive effort by the White House to deceive this nation into war.

Last week, a subpoena was issued for Karl Rove to testify before the Judiciary Committee. It appears he will take every legal action to block this subpoena. The truth is that Congress has the right – and obligation – to hold him accountable now - not months or years from now. It is long past time to pass Inherent Contempt and bring Rove, Libby and others before Congress.

We simply cannot ignore these recent developments, nor should we postpone serious inquiry until after the next election.
--------------------------------------------

Unfortunately Speaker Pelosi took impeachment off the table, and seems to be determined to keep it off the table. The Democrats are taking an enormous risk by their laise-faire attitude toward upholding the Constitution. Do they not realize the 2006 win was a mandate to stop this administration from doing further harm?

----------------------------------------------

Your commitment to accountability for the Bush/Cheney Administration, and the support of 230,000 other Americans who signed up at wexlerwantshearings.com, has inspired and motivated me in my effort to hold impeachment hearings for Vice President Dick Cheney and Inherent Contempt for Rove and others. During the past months I have been a tireless and dogged advocate of this vitally important cause.

Many of you have written me, asking for an update on where we stand with regards to impeachment hearings. I know most of you believe - as I do - that impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney – are not only justified, but that it is our constitutional obligation to look into the serious allegations of wrongdoing that have been raised. This is especially true based on the newest revelations from Scott McClellan.

I believe that it is the duty of Congress to pursue impeachment whenever there's significant evidence of wrongdoing, be it by Republicans or Democrats, regardless of the timing of elections or the current political environment.

Some of you have written me demanding that I deliver hearings or impeachment. As hard as I have been fighting for this cause, I cannot make impeachment happen by myself. What I can do, and what I have been doing at every turn, is trying to communicate two simple messages to my colleagues:

• the serious allegations of wrongdoing and the clear-cut rationale for impeachment hearings;and
• the fact that the public will support our efforts when Congress boldly acts on the side of justice and accountability.

Unfortunately, to date, these arguments have not been enough to convince even a majority of the liberal and progressive Members of Congress to support impeachment hearings. In addition, the leadership of the Democratic Party in Congress genuinely feels that pursuing impeachment will jeopardize our congressional agenda and threaten gains in the November elections. Although I genuinely disagree with this view, to date I have been unable to convince them to change this policy.

I understand the challenges that we are up against, and I recognize the odds that we face. Nevertheless, I remain unfazed and unyielding.

This new evidence from Scott McClellan could be the tipping point – but we must move quickly. I will use the McClellan admissions to help convince my colleagues that we must hold impeachment hearings.

Regardless, I will continue to fight for progressive values and our Constitution. I will do everything I can to pursue accountability for criminal actions taken by this Administration and this Vice President. I will be a furious opponent to any expansion of this misguided war, and I will fight against the use of torture by our government and to protect our civil liberties here at home.

Most of all, I will continue my efforts to convince my fellow members of Congress and voters, that we should not be a party of passivity - but that we succeed when we present the public with stark choices that are based on the guarantees in our Constitution, and not on the politics of the moment.

I will continue - at every pass - to call for impeachment and accountability. While I wish more of my colleagues supported our movement, we must not let our discouragement lead to apathy and distraction in this important election year when we must break free from eight long years of illegalities, corporate handouts, and a tragic and devastating war.

We should not end the calls for impeachment. I will push against the crimes of the Bush Administration whenever I am provided the opportunity. I will use my role on the Judiciary Committee to take on Administration officials – like I have done with Condoleezza Rice, Attorney Generals Gonzalez and Mukasey, and FBI Director Mueller.

I have not given up our fight to hold this Administration accountable and neither can you. I am grateful for your patriotism and your support. I'll continue to keep you informed and part of the conversation.

-----------------------------------------
This administration has lied to us, endangered us, and has done so willingly. These are not the actions of bumbling idiots that are just making dumb mistakes. The actions of this administration were planned and implemented for reasons I cannot fathom.

I feel that it is my duty as a citizen to take a stand to defend the Constitution against all enemies, even if those enemies are our highest ranking officials. I have written my Congressman. I ask you to do the same.

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
Address your email to The Honorable Member of Congress Representative ___________.

Use your own words, be polite and state clearly your reasons for supporting impeachment of Vice President Cheney and the indictment of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby for crimes against the United States in the form of Obstruction of Justice, lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons to go to war, and treason for the outting of an active covert CIA agent.

You will feel better after you do. Keep on writing. They like getting mail.

[1] Muriel Kane and Dave Edwards, "CBS confirms 2006 Raw Story scoop: Plame's job was to keep nukes from Iran," Raw Story (20 October 2007).
[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/26/politics/main669432.shtml

THOUGHTS ON JOHN McCAIN

2008-05-25T06:18:00.000-07:00

By; thebeerdoctor

There is an uneasiness about the Senator from Arizona. You see it on his face when a lesbian television host asked him about same sex marriage. Its a kind of whole body nervous laugh that suppresses uncomfortable anger. “My friends, my friends,” he will often say, that is almost his trademark, like Richard Nixon’s let me make one thing perfectly clear.

Identity and clarity have become a problem for the Republican Presidential Candidate. In this hyper-driven media universe, perception has become a constant concern. Not only are there tiny camera phones, microphones etc., but there is the 24/7 internet, ready to swallow it whole. So endorsements from crackpot pastors and former lobbyists with dubious connections, becomes a kind of odd parlor game, to see who is the next in line to be thrown to the curb. This of course is bipartisan.

What is referred to as mainstream media long ago dubbed John McCain as a Maverick. This designation has been kind to the Arizona senator. For those who know the meaning of the word, he is perceived as an independent thinker, a straight shooter as it were, ergo, the straight talk express. For those who do not know the word’s meaning, it invokes a cool riverboat gambler, a young Jim Garner, long before he became a shill for reverse mortgages. Whatever the perception, the label has helped in the past, and even now it is still trying to be applied.

Unfortunately, the archive of time has a way of catching up with you. Difficult transgressions from your past can suddenly resurface. The Keating Five scandal of 1989 was about the perception of corruption. John McCain said: “The appearance of it was wrong. It’s a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators , because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.”

It appears that conveying the wrong impression is a top priority to avoid. The recent release of Mrs. McCain’s tax records, despite her desire to keep them private, was done so there is no appearance of trying to hide something. As song writer Leonard Cohen once said: “soon there’ll be a meter on your bed, which will disclose what everybody knows.” Psychologically, presidential politics is a very tough arena, especially with all this, all inclusive, all invasive technology. For a man over seventy years old like John McCain, sometimes it must be bewildering.

So it is not too surprising that in a poll conducted with voters over 65 years of age, over seventy percent thought that John McCain was too old to be president. That is not age discrimination but a more honest assessment of what we are capable of, in different stages of life. This review of the job resume is important.

Senator McCain’s efforts to unite with the Republican party are difficult. Having to pander and subsequently abandon the more toxic extremist elements that usurped the Grand Old Party, has made Senator McCain appear awkward at best. The Middle East gaffe, with Senator Lieberman whispering in his ear, was quickly dismissed by big time media, as simply the Senator was having a moment.

One of the biggest assertions that attempts to make McCain’s biography bullet proof, is the claim that he is a genuine American hero. This is of course based upon his harrowing years as a POW during the Vietnam war. Never mind that he was participating in an illegal war by dropping bombs on a country with mostly agricultural peasants. If he had been put into an American prison for refusing to follow unconstitutional orders, citing the Nuremberg War Crime Trials as precedent, he would be a hero, but not in the Republican party.

Senator McCain often appears to be a thoughtful man, but other times, seems to head in the opposite direction. This is the famous temper that is whispered about, of an angry man with expletives flying out from his mouth. Then of course there is his rather weird sense of humor, that some of his colleagues have commented to not be very funny at all.

On Halloween, 2005, John McCain paid tribute to Rosa Parks from the floor of the Senate. “Rosa Parks was a civil rights icon,” John McCain noted, “who galvanized the American civil rights with her simple act of protest. She will be dearly missed but her legacy will never be forgotten.”

Certainly this was a somber tribute to a historic person. McCain, being a seasoned politician, knows how to wear different hats for different occasions. Ten days before the Halloween elegy, he was all fun and games at the Al Smith Memorial Dinner, with “my good friend, Mike Bloomberg.”

“I’m glad the Mayor, my fellow Republican is here.” The Arizona Senator remarked. “But Mike, I think we’re all relieved that the organizers decided against holding this dinner at the Apollo Theater.”

Some folks say that the straight talk express is a riot.

It will not be surprising if some new archival material, be it audio or video, will emerge to reveal the Senator from Arizona, in a hard to explain, off color moment, designed to betray his strong leadership image. No, it would not be surprising at all. The party that John McCain professes to belong to, does not actually exist any more. To maintain political survival, McCain has had to kiss the blarney stone of Bush. When running against George W. in 2000, he soon discovered he did not have the big steam money of the House of Bush. The very same evangelical knot heads he attempts to embrace now, spread vicious lies about him and his family then, the South Carolina primary being a glowing example. It would be kind if someone close to the Senator said: “John, this is not your father’s republican party.”

But that is not going to happen. The Big Wheels at Republican Central have some problems with some of McCain’s views, but these can be adjusted. He is wealthy, but he is not Big Money, so he is forced to do a dance for contributors. Attempting to pilot the ship of state, after the Cheney-Bush junta, is a formidable task. My friends, John McCain wants you to know, is ready to take on the job.

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired?

2008-05-20T01:00:00.000-07:00

By: PeaceMonger

Is there anything new going on in Washington with the Republicans and the Democrats? Nothing is ever going to change until there are more than two viable political party’s.

Are you against the war?

Do you care about the environment?

Do you think everyone should have equal rights?

Do you want single payer universal healthcare for all?

Do you think it is time to stop the War on Drugs – and legalize marijuana?

Are you concerned about the national debt?

If you answered yes to most or all of these questions you need to be looking at the Green Party of the United States. I urge you to read their lengthy and in depth party platform.

Then I suggest you Google for Republican Party Platform. There isn’t one for 2008 that I found, and the others that pop up are not official platform statements, just speeches; in particular at Regan’s funeral. No platform statement? Is that because they don’t want us to know what it is, or because they are ashamed of what they are doing? I’m guessing the former.

The democrats do have a platform statement from the 2004 convention.

Although it is far better than the nothing the Republicans offer, it does not consider universal health care a right due all citizens. It continues the drum beat of war by increasing troop numbers, although it did not say how. It says a lot of things that now with 20/20 hindsight we can see that the Democratic Party platform is just a bunch of talk with no action.

Only the Greens have plans for ending poverty, and stopping the war, and the creation of a Department of Peace. Greens offer solutions not just spin to the energy crisis, but also resource management, and cleaning up the environment.

So please put on your calendars 7:30 each Tuesday night - meetings in Nashville at Bongo Java, 2007 Belmont Blvd.

Meet other Greens or folks just drinking coffee.

This election cycle, particularly here in Tennessee, we have Green Party candidates running against a weak democratic opponent that doesn’t really expect to unseat Senator Lamar Alexander.

Folks, if you are fed up with the crap in Washington, one nice way to send the establishment a shit burger is to vote for Green Party candidates. No matter what State you are in, there is a Green Party there. Get in contact with them, and get active.

Come meet other Greens:
Tuesdays
7:30 PM
Bongo Java
Nashville

Back on Top, Back in Business

2008-05-12T01:00:00.000-07:00

by thebeerdoctor

First thing, I am no longer banned on The Huffington Post. Why I was, and the speculation, lead to a piece for which I received excellent support from readers of Streetalker.com and Truthdig.com. My speculations over content, may in fact have nothing to do with it. It could have been some technical glitch in their system. Since I never received any feedback from Huffpo, I guess I will never really know. To all who sent me encouragement I say Thank You.

But this blog is not about that. Now that the occupation of Iraq grinds on into its sixth year, I would like to tell a true, personal story, that happened to me on May 2,2003; One day after George W. Bush strutted out his flight suit on the aircraft carrier, under the banner MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

It is difficult for some to remember what a jackbooted mentality prevailed at that time. The subservient media were all too complicit in going along with whatever nonsense the government threw out as reasons for this insane aggression. It was generally accepted that overwhelming violence (shock and awe) was not only a tactic but a solution.

At the time, then as now, my business is beer. A new Hofbrauhaus had just opened in Newport, Kentucky. At that time, the Hofbrauhaus in Hong Kong had recently closed, so there were only two in the world: Munich, Germany, and Newport, Kentucky. I was going to make my way over there that evening. I knew, being May 2, they would have their marvelous Maibock on tap. For The Beer Doctor, this was a very good thing.
I should also note that I am an “ale and safety” kind of person. I do not believe in drinking and driving. So I took a metro bus downtown and literally walked across from Cincinnati, using the old L&N bridge that had recently been repainted, as a bicycle and pedestrian thoroughfare, known as The Purple People Bridge. This was mostly an initiative on the part of the commonwealth of Kentucky. The Cincinnati entrance side had not been refurbished yet; in fact it was a kind of public works blight, where the remnants of a bicentennial display of printed metal sheets where either torn off, or degraded by graffiti spray paint. There was busted glass, thrown away cans and the smell of ancient urine. It would be months before the city got around to making the Ohio entrance presentable.

I made my way across on foot, wearing a white cotton barn coat without its lining. I also wore a 100% wool brim outdoors hat from California.

When I arrived at the Hofbrauhaus in the early evening, there was already a line formed of people waiting to get in. I went up to the entrance and said: “I am the Beer Doctor, and I am here to review your beers.” I was immediately ushered in.
What followed was a wonderful couple of hours. I ordered a stein liter of their Maibock which lasted me during the entire visit. I ordered some food which was delicious. The patrons were friendly but there was slight uneasiness. I then realized the cause: I was the only one in the hall wearing a hat that was not a baseball cap.

After a wonderful time, I left, and then I remembered Mother’s Day was only nine days away. I knew that the gigantic Party Source, located about 6 blocks east, sold some of the best greeting cards in the entire area. So sauntered my way over there. A long time patron because of their extensive beer collection, I decided to go to the beer department to see what new brews had come in. This is where the trouble began.

A fairly tall, state trooper looking chap suddenly appeared. I said: “How’s it going?” He said: “I want you to leave.”

Robert Ringer once said that when people with guns talk, he listens. I said: “OK” and immediately proceeded to leave. A shuttle from Newport to Cincinnati stops across the main street from The Party Source. I saw one coming, so I hurried across the four lane road to reach the stop. Then I heard: “He’s fleeing!”

It was the local police. Four prowlers appeared at the intersection, with eight cops in tow. They proceeded to drag me back across the road, where they started flailing me with their batons, studiously avoiding my face, but everywhere else on my body was fair game.

Fully aware of Rodney King and other law enforcement horror stories, I thought what a strange way to die. But then my instinct for survival kicked in, I thought I better play possum. Which I did. I closed my eyes and just laid there as they continued to beat me. Finally, a Sargent I later learned, leaned down and started smacking me in the face, saying: “Hey buddy wake up!” I did not respond. One of the younger members of this police posse, a plumb face patrolman fresh out of high school, nervously laughed out loud: “maybe he’s dead!”

Finally realizing I was not resisting arrest, or for that matter, anything else (talk about satyagraha!), they proceeded to pull me up, throw me into the back of a prowler, where I was taken to the Newport jail.

At the Newport jail there was a person in charge ( I am not making this up) named Officer Slocum. I asked Mr. Slocum if I could make a telephone call. He responded by knocking me down on the concrete floor of the holding cell, where I landed on my left forearm, which began to swell. There were six other “prisoners” in that cell. What crime did all of us share? None of us were driving a car. I had heard of places where they consider pedestrians to be criminals, if not terrorists, but this was the first time I saw it in action.

I will spare you dear reader much of the gory details. Suffice to say it took another day and a half to get out of jail, and another week to get the matter settled, several hundred dollars lighter. It seems they had attached the ridiculous charge of “fleeing” to being publicly intoxicated. This was no small matter, since the local legislature had enacted a law that made fleeing a mandatory one year sentence. All of this was because of another drug war horror story, where a man escaping with grass in his pocket, jumped from the road onto a walkway bridge, where an officer in hot pursuit, attempted the same jump but missed. falling and dying into the frigid Ohio river.

Since the only lawyer who can represent you is one you purchase in the commonwealth of Kentucky, I decided to represent myself. I explained what happened to the judge, and the prosecutor immediately dismissed the fleeing charge. I was fined, which, when you get right down to it, was what this was all about: money extraction. It was most certainly traumatic to say the least. I was terrified to go out of my house for nearly half a year. What was the most difficult part was sensing this new gestapo type America was here to stay. Bush was claiming he knew best. The Microsoft corporation were making claims that they owned the content on the internet. The government had decided that anyone that might be Muslim, could be a person of interest. People were (and still are) being detained, tortured, and never charged.
But much good has also happened in the ensuing five years. People, and I mean the vast majority, no longer consider the Bush-Cheney administration to be valid. There have been too many lies exposed: weapons of mass destruction, Pat Tillman’s friendly fire death, etc. There is only so much BS that anyone can stand.

When I think back to that awful year, I was a terrified beaten individual. But no longer. I write this as testament to say, despite everything, things can get better. The internet has all kinds of open source applications created by ingenious folks who believe communication is for everyone, not just the privileged few. People are beginning to find their voices, so very soon, those who advocated compassion and reason and who were unjustly ignored, will be back on top, back in business.
Thank You is my only prayer. Carpe Diem Vita Brevis.

WHEN WRIGHT IS WRONG

2008-05-02T01:00:00.000-07:00

By: thebeerdoctor

May 1st, 2008

He wished it hadn’t turned out like this, but there is nothing to negotiate. Jeremiah, Barack is not going to have a sit down with you. You think of yourself as top capo in your Chicago church, but the young skipper has a much bigger crew. Business is business even when it is personal. Jeremiah Wright showed deep disrespect for Obama and his posse.

Maybe all the recent attention went to the 66 year olds’ head. At the National Press Club he clearly was having a good time, no matter who it might trouble. The visual antics during the questions time revealed a I don’t give a damn attitude that was remarkable for also being hilarious. Maybe I have been observing politics too long, but I couldn’t help wonder is there a hidden sponsor for this show?

The Louis Farrakhan question completely tore it. So the good Reverend thinks Farrakhan is one of the important voices of the 20th century. When the Nation of Islam capo speaks, black people listen? I do not know much, if anything, about religious organizations, but I have known jazz musicians from Chicago tell me that the Nation of Islam is a gangster organization, part and or parcel of the prison industrial complex. Their outreach programs help prisoners to lead moral lives free of drugs, but also free of an individual personality. Proof once again, that religion in most of its myriad forms, is actually up to no damn good.

Rev. Wright’s refusal to criticize the most honorable Louis Farrakhan has probably more to do with south side Chicago local politics, than anything else. As one former AACM percussionist told me: “Chicago is a gangster city.”

It was indeed a sad moment when Barack Obama had to call in his marker on his former pastor. He had no choice. The Aids-US Government conspiracy theory is not as crazy as the Illinois Senator thinks. But defense of Farrakhan? That’s a nut that can be certified by Planters. The Obama folks with all their media savvy, should have seen this coming. But they either refused to see the implications or suffered from misplaced loyalty on the part of their candidate. Whatever it was, it was indeed a spectacle to watch Barack Obama having all his hope boiled right out of him.

Barack Obama should have known that if his pastor is friends with Louis Farrakhan there would be trouble. The very same Louis Farrakhan who teaches us “Yacub’s History”. That all the racial problems started 6000 years ago, when a a mad genetic scientist created white people. Surely, Obama had lived in Chicago long enough to have heard these stories. Perhaps he thought it could all be glossed over… is that what community organizers do? John McCain can get a free ride when it comes to certifiable nut jobs such as John Hagee and Rod Parsley because as the media continues to reminds us, the Senator from Arizona is an American hero. Never mind that John Hagee claimed that hurricane Katrina was God’s way of showing his displeasure with homosexuality, or that Parsley wants a holy war (jihad?) against the false, evil religion known as Islam.

The point is, from my observations, politics and religion do not belong in the same house, let alone the same room. John Kennedy, for all of his faults, had one thing correct: religion at best, is a personal private matter, and has no business in statecraft. This was expedient on his part, in order to make clear that the President does not take marching orders from Rome. The same man who did not even use the word God, when addressing the nation on the Cuban missile crisis. What would he have thought of the junior Illinois Senator telling those in attendance at a rally, how he prays to Jesus every night? How far this nation has fallen from its secular strength.

How ironic that this religious belief that our politicians pander to has nothing to do with spirituality. Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama all claim Jesus as their ally. Rev. Wright stated that the God that the slave owner prays to is not the same as the God the slaves pray to. This may be true, but one thing is true, for every blessed one of them: all are talking to an invisible being. Such irrational moments should be personal, and for God’s sake, private!

I am reminded of Peter O’Toole in The Ruling Class:

“You say that you are God?”

“Yes because every time I pray, I find I’m talking to myself.”

Residential Solar Panels Lower Fuel Consumption Costs

2008-04-30T05:40:00.000-07:00

By: Kathi Gregory, AIA, CSI

Recently CNN reported http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html on the extensive renovation that Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife Tipper, have done to their historic home in Nashville, TN. One of the energy consumption reduction techniques was the use (although temporary) of solar panels.

Solar panels are constructed of thin layers of silicon. These silicon layers, when exposed to sunlight release electrons which creates an electric current. These individual cells are grouped together to form solar panels. Solar cells convert sunlight into energy with no moving parts, no noise, no pollution, and virtually no maintenance.

Currently in the United States alone over $13 billion are spent for residential water heating. Per home, that amounts to almost 11.5 barrels of oil per year, or driving your mid sized sedan about 12,000 miles. For most people, that’s a full year’s worth of driving. If you could eliminate your gasoline cost for a year wouldn’t you? It’s a no-brainer.

Since you can’t really do that, the equivalent alternative is to purchase and install a solar water heating system for your home. In fact, if you are building a new home, there is simply no excuse for not installing a solar collection grid to heat your water.

In the average US household, heating water accounts for roughly 25% of the total energy used, because the electric water heater is the biggest energy hog of all your household appliances. Solar water heating system costs have dropped more than 80% in the last 20 years, and you can expect that the cost will continue to drop as the demand increases. How much will you save? That depends on you; how much hot water you use, where you live, and the cost of electricity in your area, among other things.

Generally, if you heat you water by solar energy you can expect your water heating bill to drop 50%-85%, no matter what happens in the Middle East. Typically, a household in California could expect to save about $1000 a year in energy costs. Yes, the initial investment is more than the conventional method, but the long term savings can really mount up. Additionally, homes that have had solar water heating systems installed almost always recoup the investment through higher resale values.

How much do you need? If you live in the Sun Belt the amount of area of solar collectors needed is about 40 square feet (4 square meters) per couple, plus 8 more square feet for each additional person living in your household. If you live in colder areas of the country allow 66 square feet of collectors per couple and 14 extra square feet per additional person. You should also have a hot water tank capable of storing 1.5 gallons of water for each square foot of solar collector. Do not go down in tank size if the size is in between tank sizes available, always purchase the bigger tank. This will protect your system from over heating when you are not using a lot of hot water.

First and foremost, before investing in a solar water heating system, take steps to reduce your consumption. Set the thermostat on the water heater to 120oF, install flow restricting shower heads, and make sure your water heater and the hot water piping are well insulated.

When you consider the advantages of heating your water with sunshine, deciding to actually do it is a no-brainer. Take the time to read about the different systems that are available, purchase one that is certified and labeled by The Solar Rating & Certification Corporation, (SRCC), a nonprofit, independent third-party organization formed by the solar industry, state energy officials, and consumer advocates to certify and rate solar water heaters.

Buy American made solar panels. One of the largest solar panel manufacturers in the world is located in Memphis, TN. This is not only a plea to buy American, but to not expend the fuel and resources required to ship your panels from overseas. Then hire a professional installer with experience. Make sure they have installed at least 5 systems successfully in your area.

When you install a solar water heating system in your home, you are not only saving yourself money, you are helping us reduce our long and short term dependency on foreign oil, and you are reducing the peak load incurred by your local utility system. This reduces pressure to build more multi billion dollar power plants, and you are reducing your carbon footprint.

Finally, with these tips in mind and some independent reading, you should be able to successfully convert your sunshine into a greener, healthier lifestyle, with 94% of all people who have installed solar water heaters agreeing, it was worth it.

Tax Incentives:
The Federal government is also offering tax incentives to install solar water heating systems. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, (H.R. 6, Sec. 1335) provides a 30% tax credit up to $2,000 for the purchase and installation of residential solar electric and solar water heating property. An individual can take both a 30% credit up to the $2,000 cap for a photovoltaics system and a 30% credit up to a separate $2,000 cap for a solar water heating system. A 30% tax credit up to $500 per 0.5 kilowatt (kW) is also available for fuels cells. Initially scheduled to expire at the end of 2007, the tax credits were extended through December 31, 2008, by Section 206 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (H.R. 6111). Also check with your local electric company, there are frequently state or local tax incentives.

Sources and further reading:
EERE Consumer Guide: Solar Water Heaters http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12850Solar Water Heating http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy96/17459.pdfImprove Efficiency with Solar Water Heating http://www.energystar.gov/ia/new_homes/features/ESSolarWaterHeating.pdf

BANNED FROM HUFFINGTON POST

2008-04-25T04:24:00.000-07:00

April 22, 2008 was a difficult day. The revelation that Senator Clinton would "obliterate" Iran if they attacked Israel only brought to light how inhuman a candidate can become in their zeal to secure their all important victory. How strange that the news media could continue to rehash the remarks of an angry black minister, as if the Reverend Wright was running for president. But very little was made about the "obliterate" remark. For myself, such a remark proves that Senator Clinton needs psychiatry, not the presidency. But I guess she really is ready from day one, to blow away some people to kingdom come. Was that why I have been banned from The Huffington Post?

I have been blogging comments on Huffington for the last five months. Although I do not use foul language, and have never attacked another blogger, for some strange reason I am now banned. Perhaps one of their moderators got tired of reading my criticisms of the candidates (I am after all, an advocate for peace and justice) and decided to rid their internet salon of my radical rantings. I say radical because the way the ball bounces in main stream media, if you so much as question our holy military policies, with attached armament industries, you must be a radical. The fact of being a peaceful person, who never advocates violence, does not make a bit of difference. To some in this society, thinking independently is considered a subversive act.

Perhaps the real reason I have been banned on The Huffington Post is because my last posting, I criticized the ownership class. Perhaps one of the Hufpo moderators read my remarks and thought: my God, that includes Ms. Stassinopoulos! Somebody better ban the bastard!
Part of what was written said: "The ownership class can play ideological games all they want. Those of us who do not own, have to live with the consequences. The indulgences of the privileged are always with us. This enables public money to be squandered on sports stadiums, bank bailouts, and of course the all time favorite: weapons!"

Is that why I was banned? Hard to believe that a person as insignificant as myself could warrant such a draconian option, but there it is.
I tried to contact Huffington Post to give me an explanation. Their response has been nothing. My comments before being banned can still be found on Google, at thebeerdoctor's huffington post profile. But there will be no more. Luckily, Newscloud, Truthdig and Streetalker.com, still welcome my writing. As one kind friend wrote: "that's their loss, not yours". Thank you.

ONLY WHEN IT IS DARK ENOUGH, CAN YOU SEE THE STARS

2008-04-06T01:00:00.000-07:00

BY:Thebeerdoctor

I was twelve years old when Martin Luther King Jr. was killed. A turbulent time to become a teen, made even tougher with the RFK shooting a couple of months later. It was a fiery time, with a certain kind of fire that no water could put out. I wrote this on the Huffington Post:

Whenever I think of Martin Luther King Jr., I also think of John Coltrane. Both men in the final phases of their lives chose to work with difficult, human spiritual matters. The marginalization of Dr. King's work against the Vietnam war and for economic justice, makes those who praise him as a noble symbol, rather than a living force for change, quite uncomfortable. The same can be said of John Coltrane, whose music was considered demanding and difficult, when he decided to literally "play his way over to the other side". Acknowledging the greatness of these endeavors would mean admitting that most of us suffer from a shallow perception of ultimate, metaphysical reality. Great souls help humankind to recognize that we indeed do have a soul. Truly, a remarkable accomplishment.

Which brings me back to April 2008. I received a campaign e-mail from Michelle Obama this morning, reminding me of the MLK legacy etc. Common wisdom has it that because her husband is the hot presidential candidate, who happens to be black, or fifty percent so, his candidacy represents the continuing legacy of Dr. King. Common wisdom has it that if Martin was around today, he would support Barack Obama. But would he? Putting aside the sanitized Martin Luther King; that version of history that embraces the I Have A Dream speech, but ignores his anti Vietnam war stance, which by today's cowardly media, would probably be called hate speech, you would have quite another take on current matters, including politics.

While doing research on Martin Luther King's last public address, the remarkable I See The Promised Land, a strange coincidence occurred when Barack Obama's 2007 AIPAC speech was found listed in Google, two entries down. Comparing the texts provided some insights.

"It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world, its nonviolence or nonexistence." It should always be remembered that this was spoken by a man who in less than twenty four hours was about to die a violent death. Compare that with this:

"We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan. And we can then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran. Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us."

So said Senator Obama to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2007, sounding remarkably similar to Vice-President Dick Cheney. Was the Senator from Illinois, pandering to the Israeli lobby?

"a man can't ride your back unless it is bent." That is unadulterated MLK, like John Coltrane on the album AUM. Not for the timid, or those who accept compromise on matters that should never be compromised. As Jeanette Rankin said back in 1929, war "cannot be disciplined into decency or codified into common sense; for war is the slaughter of human beings, temporarily regarded as enemies, on as large a scale as possible." That was and is the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Strangely I thought Barack Obama was a student of Martin Luther King's teachings. But that must be the Martin Luther King Lite I have heard about. I wonder if Senator Obama is a fan of John Coltrane's music. I can imagine him enjoying albums like Blue Train and maybe even A Love Supreme. But records such as Ascension or Live In Seattle? I can almost hear him saying: "you're wearing me out brother."

INSANITY'S HOLY LADDER

2008-03-30T06:37:00.000-07:00

By: Thebeerdoctor

First there is the banality of the news: US STEPS UP AIR STRIKES IN BASRA. A glib announcement to be sure, sandwiched between celebrity gossip and the latest political drool pool. It seems so abstract, so distant. President Bush proclaims this to be a defining moment. Everybody is “aiming to make sure that we have enough of a presence to make sure that we’re successful in Iraq.”

What is considered successful in Iraq is something only the commander-in-chief and his handlers can define. But something that needs no further definition is the terror and horror wrought on the Iraqis from these air strikes. Any concern about the moral ambiguities of such actions, becomes simply an argument over whether those found in the smoldering rubble, were civilians or combatants. One thing is certain, whatever their political status, they are all equally dead.

There is something about the inherent vicious cruelty of the Bush occupation doctrine that most people in the United States do not want to comprehend.

“This is a test and moment for the Iraqi government, which strongly has supported Prime Minister Maliki’s actions, ” George Bush instructed. Tell that to the forty or so policemen who surrendered their weapons to Sheik Salman al-Feraiji, representative of Moktada al-Sadr, in exchange for an olive branch and a copy of the Quran. They explained that they could not fight their brothers in the Mahdi army.

“They’re fighting some pretty tough characters,” George Bush noted, while explaining US support of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s crackdown on Shia militias. “People who kill innocent people to achieve objectives. And yes, there’s going to be violence, and that’s sad.”

This statement was not as dead pan glib as the vice president’s So? But equally distressing. Here is certified proof that war, or as in this case, occupation, is in itself a form of terrorism. But the people orchestrating this debacle refuse to admit this, they would rather, look at the big picture, where the inhumanity of deliberate deception becomes abstracted to a sound bite blur: Things are getting better in Iraq, I don’t care what anybody says. The surge is working. This is freedom’s defining moment.

Working for whom is the real question here. This is certainly not the case for the ordinary Iraqi who struggles to find clean water and electricity, and avoid becoming collateral damage from some misguided precision air strike. How would an ordinary US citizen feel if our cities were occupied with helicopter gun ships hovering about? One of the chief demands of the fiery radical cleric, as he is referred to here, is for the occupiers to get the hell out of his country. If the roles were reversed, and the United States was occupied, Moktada al-Sadr would be considered a fiery patriot.

“It’s still a dangerous, fragile situation in Iraq, ” President Bush cautioned. Apparently the surge is working, just not quite as well as they thought.

Using military rationalization to justify this horrendous conflict, makes the candidacy of Senator John McCain a precarious choice for president. Despite the news media excusing his foreign policy gaffes, the last thing this country or world needs is an uninformed leader, when attempting to repair the broken hornets nest that is Iraq. But this is pointless to bring up with those who subscribe to the we are not going to cut and run like they did in ‘91 mantra. The ever elusive goal of victory remains the raison d’etre, even if that involves a systematic eradication of empathy. What a peculiar form of Christianity. The holy mission of bringing democracy to the people of the world, is said to be President Bush’s plan from God. He is resolved to bring them liberation, even if it kills them, one or all.

A Truthless Monster

2008-03-27T01:00:00.000-07:00

By: Thebeerdoctor

This is going to be tough. It has to be. First the quote: “It is difficult for the ordinary voter to come to grips with the notion that a truly evil man, a truthless monster with the brains of a king rat and the soul of a cockroach, is about to be sworn in as president of the United States for the next four years…”

That was Hunter S. Thompson, writing about George H.W. Bush on September 14, 1987. This could also apply to the wife of a former president, who just happens to be running for the very same office. Why do I say this? Well you only have to look at the manure being shoveled out from the team Clinton barn

“He would not have been my pastor,” Senator Clinton announced, passing judgment on the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend…”

The arrogance that comes out of the Senator’s mouth is astounding. Woe betide anyone who has the temerity to question the authority of the United States government. According to Mrs. Clinton and the media minions, that is treasonous talk. The “chickens coming home to roost” remark about 9/11 that was so shocking, it is now classified as hate speech. I do not know the sphere of the Washington insiders, but I heard the same analysis said by white people, less than a month after the event.

With the advent of the video loop, we can now hear and see, ad nauseam, Reverend Wright saying “God damn America!” Never of course putting this into any kind of context. But why should it? It is doing the job intended. Joseph Goebbels would be proud. Do not think, emotionally react. A gut check, from day one.
Recently the prime minister of Australia made a public apology for the way his country treated the aboriginal people. It is difficult for some of the jingoists to admit, but there is honor in admitting shame. Hillary Clinton has praised Martin Luther King. Was it hate speech when Dr. King said that the U.S. government was one of the great purveyors of violence in the world? To call a black minister’s criticism of the United States government “hate speech”, reveals an intolerance that prevents real change from taking place. Barack Obama attempted to address this in his famous remarks about race. But it does not seem that the whirling dervishes of spin media had a clue to what he was talking about.

John McCain has been given essentially a free pass when it comes to careful examination of his spiritual supporters, John Hagee and Rod Paisley. Perhaps it is alright to be endorsed by religious nut jobs, just as long as they support aid to Israel and want to go to war with Iran. Jeremiah Wright is hateful when he speaks of justice for the Palestinians.

Another remarkable acrobatic trick of team Clinton was to marginalize the vote for the Iraq war resolution. According to their take, the vote was unfortunate, with the had I known then what I know now alibi. But an examination of the record shows that 23 Senators said No to that resolution, including Barbara Boxer of California, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Just what did those ladies understand that the Senator from New York did not?

“President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier.” So said Senator Clinton from the Senate floor, before casting her yea vote. It is not surprising that she refuses to admit she made a disastrous mistake. That would be admitting participatory shame, which is something a leader, ready from day one (as her inflated resume indicates), can never do.

So this wrenching spectacle continues. Hillary Clinton and her team, including the very snide ex-president, continue to demonstrate that when it comes to seeking power, there is no room for principles.

Since I am not a part of the Obama campaign, I do not have to do a mea culpa, like Samantha Power. I stand by my statement. “Truthless” is a word invented by Hunter Thompson. But it so apt for this situation. I leave you the rest of his prophetic quote: “And he will bring his gang in with him, a mean network of lawyers and salesmen and pimps who will loot the national treasury, warp the laws, mock the rules and stay awake 22 hours a day looking for at least one reason to declare war, officially, on some hapless tribe in the Sahara or heathen fanatic like the Ayatollah Khomeini.”

RIP Hunter S. Thompson.

SO WHAT?

2008-03-21T01:00:00.000-07:00

The agony known as Iraq continues no matter what anybody does to try and stop it. The democrats for the most part, have proven to be the media conscious medusoids of legend. For their irresponsible part, they refuse to stop the funding of President Bush’s disaster, while the republicans, as least those in the loop, dismiss the idea of stopping the killing and maiming of their fellow Americans, with claims that the surge is working, and that defeat (i.e. withdrawal) is not an option. Just what exactly is winning, no one can explain.Nor does anybody seem to have an explanation for why suicide attacks occur on a continuous basis. According to The Independent of Great Britain, there have been well over a thousand suicide attacks in the five years of the American occupation. Many of these attacks are not by jihadist battle hardened fighters, but rather young people who for whatever reason, economic or religious, see this as a shortcut to paradise, or immortal fame, or both.

Such blood and sacrifice should not seem too strange, even to the most complacent American. After all, is not George W. Bush often extolling the virtues of ultimate sacrifice: for the good of the team, for the good of the cause? POTUS has no problem with sending thousands of people across the globe, fully armed to do battle with the evil ones. He is ready, he informs us, to smoke them out of their holes, dead or alive. Of course religious insanity has a part to play in this. Like Osama Bin Laden, George Bush believes he is performing God’s will on earth. Delusional righteousness becomes a danger to humankind that can not be exaggerated.

Deadeye Dick Cheney shocked many folks when he said: “So?” When asked about the seventy five percent of the population poll that thought that the Iraq war was not worth it. The arrogance was unsettling, but then, what does the Vice President fear? Judicial Watch can force Hillary Clinton to release her public logs as First Lady, but they could not get Cheney to release the minutes of the infamous Energy Task Force. The public be damned he says, and so it is. There is great difficulty in facing the fact that we have powerful myths that are, quite sadly, accepted to be reality. The commonly held notion that might makes right, helps to enable those supposedly in charge, to spend billions of dollars perpetrating violence. But there is difficulty, at least on a public relations front, when the enemy’s arsenal mainly consists of improvised explosive devices and of course, suicide bombers. While the other side, the good guys as it were, have everything from B-52 bombers to robotically guided drones. Perhaps that is why Mr. Cheney used an odd analogy to the Civil War, as an alibi to all this filth and carnage. With an unfounded belief in the invisible, even the most horrendous activity can be perceived in a noble light.

So the question then is: what is a rational peaceful person to do? It is rather obvious that solutions to these troubles will not be found on television. Jerry Mander once pointed out that the television industry thrives on conflict. It is not surprising, considering the enormous sums of money involved. War is portrayed as noble (never mind those Winter Soldier meetings). National Health Care is impossible (just look at the drug ads on the evening news). And conflict is celebrated, from Obama versus Clinton, to pay per view, ultimate extreme fighting.

It is indeed a corporate culture that demands that the ownership class knows what is best for us all. Democracy, as it is seen, is simply getting the yokels to vote every four years. It is no historical accident that the first people who were allowed to vote in this country, where slave owning white men with land. How strange it is to talk of exporting democracy, when right here, it is one continuous struggle.

CAUGHT UP IN THE CONCEPT

2008-03-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

By: Thebeerdoctor

I recently spoke to a friend of mine and said somewhat dramatically that this election may be the last gasp for this country to be a democratic republic founded on human freedom. The signs of a rather dismal future are everywhere. The money is devalued. Oil has become a commodity god that justifies everything from torture to preemptive war. To paraphrase James Baker during Gulf War I, “in a word, it is about oil”. And do not forget greed. The billions being looted by the corporate outsourcing of the military, will continue no matter who gets elected. The main difference between the two political wings is that the republicans would never consider something so regressive as a windfall profits tax. KBR, Blackwater, and Bechtel etc., put out real money to make sure that never happens. The political machine needs grease. Always.So it is quite understandable that the political establishment feels threatened by Senator Barack Obama. For the first time in twenty years, there is a distinct possibility that the pageant government known as the presidency, will not be under the control of the Bush-Clinton crime families. Imagine that! It is no wonder that the Clinton team have resorted to the kitchen sink concept of campaigning. Karl Rove is most likely, very proud.

Add to all of this, the news media’s obsession with creating a story, using ambiguous talk about image, momentum, and of course, who is raising the most money. Suddenly it is time to call in the experts. Folks who will explain that Senator Clinton is stronger than ever, despite an enormous amount of mathematical evidence to the contrary. Pay no attention to that person behind the curtain. Obama they claim, is a light as a feather fairy tale ready to float away. Not exactly the truth, but if it sticks when you throw it up a wall, use it.

All of this helps to explain the alibis given when the election results do not turn out favorably. So if 600,000 more voters went for Obama, it is because the country, as Geraldine Ferraro put it, “is caught up in the concept”. According to the former vice-presidential candidate, Obama’s success is due to affirmative action. That is why he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Who would have known?Racism, sexism, fear mongering and ridicule are useful weapons in the team Clinton toolbox. The disingenuous nature of Mrs. Clinton’s behavior should cause even her most loyal supporters to examine this election more carefully. What exactly is the concept to be caught up in? To maintain the status quo? Unfortunately maintaining things as they are, is very high maintenance indeed. The protection of the wealthy corporate elite is job number one. How else can you explain why national health care remains some abstract point of argument, rather than, as the British would say, a proper public service.

The fact that the United States government embraces the concept that violence and the purveying of it, is now proper global policy, only reveals how far the national character has been corrupted by mindless jingoistic fear. Barack Obama keeps pointing out that fear is not a working model. That not only the Iraq war is bad, but what is worse is the mindset that lead to it taking place. There is genuine empathy on the part of the Illinois candidate, for all of those not connected. People worried about losing their homes. Worried about loved ones being killed in wars no one seems to be able to explain. Worried about their analog televisions. Worried about vehicles that keep demanding more money for gasoline. Worried about jobs to get more money to buy more things, to get deeper in debt. Worried about cell phone coverage and the price of entertainment. Yes, the vast majority of Americans are caught up in the concept of a way of life, that soon, may no longer be possible. In such an atmosphere, it is not all that surprising that many ordinary Americans have said: it is time to try something different.

Dragging the Ship Over the Mountain

2008-02-26T01:00:00.000-08:00

By: thebeerdoctor

Recent national political events have reminded me of something I have not considered for awhile. Watching Barack Obama going through the paces of his standard stump speech reminds me of the audacity of repetition. To find out you are genealogically related to someone, you hope that someone is cool. To be more seasoned means that all that hope is boiled out of you... I think you get the idea.

As a lifelong research student I am sometimes enthralled by the political process. A system that enables avarice and naked ambition to be disguised as altruism and public service. This, it has been said, is par for the course. The political professionals, sometimes known as insiders, are hip to this gag. But what about the voters?

Maybe it is just blowback for being a political junkie, but I swear I recently thought I saw Barack Obama looking somewhat like Klaus Kinski. Klaus Kinski? Yes, the late actor who portrayed a vampire in Werner Herzog's remake of Nosferatu. But that is not the movie I am reminded of. Rather, it is the epic movie Fitzcarraldo.Fitzcarraldo, if you have never seen it, is a movie about a man dragging a 200 ton steam ship over a mountain, as part of a commercial enterprise to build an opera house in a South American jungle town. Kinski's magnificent portrayal of Fitzcarraldo is that of a man with a dream obsession, and an indomitable will to make that vision a reality.

What is also quite remarkable about Fitzcarraldo is that the film itself is a record of visual truth. There are no special digital effects. Thus, the movie was indeed shot in the jungle, and that really is a full size ship being dragged over the mountain, and subsequently, bouncing down river rapids. There are no miniatures involved! Which strangely, reminds me of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign. His vision obsession, with his background as a community organizer, is to change the discourse of American politics so that real problems can be addressed. But one of the biggest obstacles in realizing this vision is the Democratic Party itself. That is the ship he is trying to drag over the mountain.

Consider this: look at the state of this country, as created by the politics-as-usual crowd. Hillary Clinton still boasts of the good times the country enjoyed when her husband was President, taking exaggerated credit for economic expansion (the dot com bubble) but not the retraction (when the dot com bubble burst) right after team Clinton left the White House. The same can be said about Bill Clinton's cheerleading and implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. A policy that enabled businesses to exploit labor south of the border (Yes you can in Yucatan!), eliminating thousands of living wage jobs in the United States, simultaneously, causing thousands of undocumented workers to risk life and limb to cross into the U.S., after multi-national agribusiness reaped havoc on local Mexican agriculture. Family farmers found themselves beneath the shadow of the Jolly Green Giant. This would be laughable if it was not so tragic.Empty rhetoric or not, part of the appeal of Barack Obama's speech is that it invokes the idea of a more civilized world. Where free enterprise is not allowed to become the tyrant known as monopolized capitalism, and that human labor with dignity matters.

That may seem vague and unrealistic to some, but considering the delusional mindset in place now, this ship of state is about to head down the rapids, and could very easily smash up against the impending rocks.The movie Fitzcarraldo has a bittersweet ending. Although his commercial enterprise fails, Fitzcarraldo sells his ship and uses the money to bring an opera company to the jungle. His dream was realized, just not the way he imagined.

Thoughts on Obama

2008-02-20T01:00:00.000-08:00

By: the beer doctor

The founder's day event in Wisconsin Saturday night presented a format problem for the Clinton campaign. Is it wise that Hillary comes out before Barack Obama? This makes it appear that she is the warm-up act, preparing the crowd for the main event, and I mean the main man, the guy you've heard so much talk about, the junior senator from Illinois!

But there is also a problem if Hillary Clinton appears after Obama. Then there will be these rather awkward comparisons to her "substance speech" with the "hope mongering" of Obama. Either way it is not good for Hillary Clinton. No matter how much the experts belittle so-called empty rhetoric, there is something about an inspiring speech that is so valuable in political theater that it indeed can make all the difference. And this is a juggernaut that the Clinton folks have to deal with: an intelligent candidate with natural rhetorical skills. Add to that the exoticism of his origins and story, it is easier to see why the inevitability of the Clinton nomination is now in doubt.Suffice to say that the Clinton campaign totally underestimated the strength and determination of Barack Obama. Preferring to operate in the delusion that Obama was just another black candidate, like Jesse Jackson, as Bill Clinton put it. Nothing in American politics could be further from the truth.

I remember the first time I saw Barack Obama on television. It was the speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic Convention. I said to my family at that time: "he may one day be the first black American president." I thought: some time in the future, and never would have imagined he would come so far in just four years time. Even last year, when he announced his candidacy, there was talk of a symbolic gesture, and it never seemed to occur to anyone at that time, that no, this was no gesture, he was going after the whole enchilada.

This is where the Clinton campaign made a huge mistake. Secure in the knowledge that they had the big money locked in, they campaigned with the confidence, now seen as hubris, that it will all be over by the first week in February. Meanwhile, the Obama folks were building up a giant small donor data base on the internet, with their candidate and his wife working as hard on the campaign trail as anybody in show business.

It would be best to put aside all the nonsense about Barack Obama being naive, untested and weak. Bill and Hillary have both tried that tactic, but without much success. Yes, it is true that Obama has the same stock speech that he gives day after day, and despite pundit consternations, it is most effective. Why? Well first it gets back to inspiration. As one attendant at an Obama rally told me: "I may not agree with him on all policy matters, but I respect him." This may be the basis for the so-called Obamacans, republicans who shudder at the thought of Senator McCain launching yet another preemptive war against Iran.

The whole race card gets hammered to death by the media. There again, those who know seem to be missing the point. Barack Obama's favorable numbers among white voters has very little, if any, to do with liberal guilt. It is much more likely that the general electorate has become weary of ideological, nonsensical, hot button issues. This divisive climate has made it close to impossible for a reasonable person to be considered. You only have to look at the rantings from both left and right to become conscious of the fact that they will never be satisfied no matter who the candidate is. For this corrosive but very loud minority, everything about the election is just to score some ideological points.

But what about the average voter? Someone who takes their civic responsibility seriously and votes, but does not make a racket and/or career out it. What is he or she to make of candidates who renounce the theory of evolution, say that all answers are in the Bible, and that torture is not only necessary but sometimes good? Or of a woman who claims her thirty five years of experience makes her the most qualified, when in fact the main reason she was able to move to the front of the line was because she was the spouse of an ex-United States President. Suddenly Barack Obama seems like a very resonable person indeed.

Make no mistake I am not a great supporter of Obama. I am too radical for that. As an advocate for universal peace and justice, and a complete end to the insane war on drugs, Senator Obama is too moderate for my personal concerns. But considering the alternatives in this frighteningly high stakes poker game, he is at this time, the best chance for this country.