Downing Street Memo Revelation Missed By Media

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Will Miller and Cooper Go to Jail?

Ernest Judith and Matthew Go To Jail
Hah! Whoever said the press was protected by the First Amendment? Perhaps those Founding Idiot Fathers did, but surely not the Supreme Court!

At Press Think, Harry Shearer recently commented:

You quote a National Review writer thusly: "Readers expect a certain amount of American-ness in their reporters. They expect that since the source of these reporters’ liberties is the U.S. Constitution, then perhaps they owe the U.S. a tiny bit of loyalty." Don't conservatives, and Christians, and the Founders, believe that the source of these reporters' liberties (and those of the rest of us) is (to use one formulation) Nature and Nature's God, not the Constitution?

Behold the face of God.

Moses, Git Out the Courthouse

"Moses, Git Out the Courthouse"
A New Hit by The Supremes...

NY Times Promises Less Clarity for the Sake of Keeping Conservatives Happy

NY Times Promises Less Clarity for the Sake of Keeping Conservatives Happy
The New York Times is promising that the paper will back off from publishing clearly and realistically. In Bill Keller's stated quest for a more 'even-handed' (less "urban" - ahem) treatment of stories, you can see he is pandering to Conservatives, even though he avers that he is not. (It seems as if they are already beginning the bamboozling). If this is a route they choose, I believe that the blogosphere will take a bit of the power, credibility, and the left-minded audience the NY Times once had. The last bastion of clarity for people who respect intellect and clarity - the Internet. Who knew?

I could use some newspaper to line my catbox.


See NRO Commentary

D.C. Dick is the New Baghdad Bob

D.C. Dick is the New Baghdad Bob
...or maybe just "delusional dick"....

12 Years to Defeat Insurgency

Defeating Insurgency Could Take as long as 12 Years, Rumsfeld Says
Did you hear that? Twelve years.

I'm a Blogcritic

I'm a Blogcritic

My first Blogcritics column. It's a political opinion piece. I appreciate founder and publisher Eric Olsen's willingness to give my voice wings at the popular website.

Tar Heel Tavern #18

Tar Heel Tavern #18

Don't miss Mandie's fantastic collage. It's the 18th edition of the Tar Heel Tavern. While you're at her site, give yourself an extra treat. Take a look through her gorgeous photos.

photo/poem

The train to yesterday is leaving last evening
Get on board before you age another day
Your loved ones will greet you on the platform
They've missed you more than words could say


photo and poem by Jude Nagurney Camwell

Weird Coincidence - Leonardo

Weird Coincidence - Leonardo

I bought the most beautiful table candles at a store last week. I brought them home and put one in my bedroom and the other on my kitchen table. When the sun shines through them, the colors in the glass holders become even more vibrant.

I went to Trade Street Journal to do some reading and saw a familiar name. I asked myself, "Where have I seen that name recently?" I looked at the stickers on the glass table candles and sure enough, the name "Leonardo" was on them. It was so strange - so coincidental. On the same day I'd purchased those beautiful glass candle vases, I went to one of my favorite blogs and read about the company who sold them. Not only that, the Dan Brown book "The DaVinci Code" was sitting right by my side. I checked out their website and they have a lot of lovely products.

Kristen Plucks Plumage Off Chickenhawk Rove

The GOP Used NYC
photo by Ethan Camwell, taken April 2001

Kristen Plucks Plumage Off Chickenhawk Rove
Leaves behind a bare little lump of lies in her awesome wake!

Anyone who has read the Iddybud blog for a long while knows how I feel about Kristen Breitweiser, widow of Ron Breitweiser, who died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. I believe Kristen is a courageous woman; a voice of reason; an inspiration; an American heroine.

Today at the Huffington Post, Kristen has written her opinion of Karl Rove's recent divisive and ill-conceived comments.She shames Karl Rove - she's the right one to do it - and he deserves it.

"Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't...[..]

.....For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too.[..].Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world..[..]

....Karl, please “understand” that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive “understanding of 9/11” know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America..[..]

....what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."

You tell that lying little chickenhawk weasel, Kristen!

A Word of Warning to Democrats Who Won't Stand Up and Fight

A Word of Warning to Democrats Who Won't Stand Up and Fight

John Cory, a Vietnam veteran and recipient of the Purple Heart and Bronze Star, asks:

"What the hell is wrong with you Democratic politicians? Why do you turn on each other? Why won't you stand by your own words and ideals? Why do you keep apologizing for telling the truth? And why can't anyone see McCain's true colors? Or Lieberman or Biden?

And why in God's name do you expect folks like me to come support you after you turn tail and run?

We know the truth out here. We will stand with anyone who stands up for us. Where are you?"

I couldn't say it any better. It's simple. I am willing to support Democrats when they show they are willing to support what we can all see is clear truth, regardless of what the cable news networks are screeching on and on about.

9/11 is Bush's political life-saving oxygen. His administration doesn't care who they have to suck the life out of in order to win. Bush’s poll numbers are sinking lower than Great-Grandma's bosom, and Rove is using 9/11 to try to get Bush's poll numbers up again.

I'm not going to get all hot under the collar about Karl Rove's ignorant comments. It's his job to be an asshole and to inflict damage upon the Democrats - if he can. He's very good at what he does. And, as far as the media goes, he gets away with it - even when he's purposefully dividing America. 9/11 is Bush's political life-saving oxygen. His administration doesn't care who they have to suck the life out of in order to win. Bush’s poll numbers are sinking lower than Great-Grandma's bosom, and Rove is using 9/11 to try to get Bush's poll numbers up again. I think many Americans see right through his shenanigans - and you Democrats, by backing down from your own convictions, are showing that you have lost faith in the critical thinking skills of independent Americans. I regret seeing Karl Rove and Company get the better of you.

I'm a lot angrier with Dick Durbin for giving me temporary encouragement for exposing the torture at Guantanamo, and then sending my confidence crashing to the ground with an apology that never should have been made. I've been so upset that I've held my tongue - until now.

Democrats - until you show some moral courage, I do not consider you as individuals who share my personal values.

Where is your conviction? Why is it that you continue to fail to convey your values to the public in a meaningful way? Is it because you are afraid of what CNN's "Inside Politics" might say about you because you got tough with the White House? The cable news pundits are constantly playing catch-up with citizen's media these days. News is being swiftly analyzed and disseminated by the blogosphere, and the talking heads on cable news often focus on the wrong stories - or take too long to get around to talking about the right ones.

Many in media have chosen to deem the Downing Street memos as worthless, and we know that those official governemnt documents contain the proof of the worst deception ever deliberately committed by a sitting President. Just today, Paul Krugman raised the fact that the Fourth Estate is lagging behind the bloggers, and he says: "Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to start talking seriously about how to get out of Iraq."

Democrats - you are in danger. You must start trusting and listening to the people you are sworn to represent. You are looking cowed and weak-spined.

Change - or I assure you that you will suffer political death through abandonment.

Ever the optimist, I'd be the very last one to shut the door on you, but I cannot deny there are great rumblings among many Democrats.

Fight for us - fight for America.

May I suggest reading Sun Tzu's "Art of War"? In order to be successful leaders, you must be convincing ones.

Listen to John Cory. Listen to Hoffmania. Listen to Markos.

Liberals aren't killing our troops. I'll give that credit to the war cheerleaders who couldn't give two shits about the lack of armor for our forces in Iraq, or about the lies that put them there for no discernable reason. The same people who couldn't care whether this administration has a victory strategy, or whether we have the manpower to fight the war effectively.
American politics has reached a new low these past two three days. And given the desperation of the war cheerleaders, it's only going to get worse. It's the only way they can cover their spectacular failures.

The best way to tell the anti-war folks to fuck off would be to succeed. Pacify Afghanistan. Defeat the insurgency in Iraq. Destroy Al Qaida.

But that would require a level of competence utterly and completely absent in this administration.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

"It's hard to stop suicide bombers, and yet they're able to do incredible damage."

-George W. Bush, in a press conference today


A suicide bomber in a vehicle killed six U.S. Marines today (three of them women) when it exploded near their convoy in Falluja. Incredible damage, indeed.

Growing Freedom Through the Diversity of Free Press

Growing Freedom Through the Diversity of Free Press

Why would some Egyptians, many of whom you might think would welcome Condoleeza Rice's call for political reform in their nation, denounce the secretary of state, instead? What moves them to make racist and sexist comments about her for meddling in Egypt's domestic affairs?

At The New Republic, Joesph Braude points out that the popular media in Egypt, while not being particularly accurate, does not suffer from what Paul Krugman calls "the tyranny of even-handedness", a disturbing media-trend which results in the effect of ethical numbness and intellectual paralysis when viewing most American cable news shows and stories. The claim to "fair and blanced" may be a great cover for the radically conservative Fox News network, and the Wall Street Journal may try to tell you that most Egyptians appreciated and loved Condi's recent message to the Egyptians, but the truth is that the majority of Egyptians are not hearing rosy stories - and this is probably for the best. Although many of the news stories coming from the Egyptian media have been "wildly inaccurate", they still capture grains of truth. Braude writes:

By delivering her speech when she did, Rice walked into the middle of a nasty schism within the country's media. Neither side in this conflict thinks particularly well of the United States. And yet for precisely the rationales that undergirded Rice's speech, it is in America's interest to see the conflict grow.

One line from the article jumped out at me, and reminded me of how the stupidity of the Bush foreign policy in Iraq has, for the most part, damaged world perception of our best intentions to support democracy around the world (Although I realize there has been a long-standing anti-American sentiment to begin with, the conniving Bush and the neocons have made things harder for everyone in this world, including our own U.S. military):

"...the article asserted that Egyptians do not want "American-style democracy, like the kind one finds in Afghanistan or Iraq."

If America is not particularly worried about Egypt's political reform being a carbon-copy of American-style democracy, then there could be an upside to all of this. According to Mr. Braude, "some of Rice's bad press in Cairo should be viewed as an acceptable price to pay for the political reforms the U.S. government has been demanding" in the region.

Overall, I think Mr. Braude brings about an important lesson for us all. Delivering the news isn't supposed to be a squeaky clean process where you can present every point of view in every story - and still expect that story to make sense. Media, when editors are only concerned about what is viewed as "fair and balanced", does not inspire a population to change. It doesn't educate the public, but serves to confuse them. It doesn't inspire them to dream about what could be - it is a perfect vehicle for political stagnation and propaganda. The current that is moving political reform along in Egypt may be hastened when the public is given straight stories and are trusted to use their critical thinking skills to decide what is right for their own political culture. That's what democracy is all about.

There is one (uneven/loose) parallel I draw, between U.S. media and Egyptian media, from reading that "tens of millions of Egyptians get their news not from any newspaper but from the national radio and television stations owned by the government."

In many ways, especially in the U.S. Cable News business and "talk-radio", the "free" media seems to have become little more than a tool for government propaganda - especially in the case of Fox News, which is the most highly-rated TV news network. Even in White House press conferences I have watched these past five years, American reporters do not seem to sufficiently challenge or question the White-House line. Their supine obedience helped to buy us a war we never needed to wage in Iraq.

Think of America and American media when you read Mr. Braude's final paragraph:

If Rice's clarion call for democracy in Cairo is to be honored, the United States should be prepared to exert considerable pressure on Mubarak to loosen his grip on the fourth estate--not tighten it, as he and his apologists may be tempted to do after the election. Either way, America is in for some unwelcome headlines in Cairo. But some of those unwelcome headlines will be a sign of growing freedom--and therefore welcome indeed.

The Bush administration has an invisible grip on American media. There are elements of White House intimidation and fears of market retribution in the stifling of the American press. The recent assault upon public broadcasting should be ringing alarm bells. There is a flaw in the system of capitalism that is severely damaging our First Amendment rights. If we Americans do not yet see that, in the aftermath of being deceptively thrown into an unecessary war that has taken so many lives and promises to take more, then God help us, we will lose the freedom for which our ancestors fought and died.

While I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Braude's appeal to the White House to put pressure on the government of Egypt to loosen their grip on the media, I think we'd best look at ourselves and clean our own house. As trend-setters in the world, we Americans should serve as a wonderful example of freedom of the press. Instead, our own Fourth Estate lies in shame. It's been placed in the laps of the Fifth Estate - the second superpower - the Internet - to deliver the truth.

Newspaper on Bush Impeachment:"Why Not?"

Newspaper on Bush Impeachment:
"Why Not?"

Brian Clarey of Yes Weekly, the alternative weekly newspaper in Greensboro, NC, has written about Ralph Nader's and others' calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush in the aftermath of the Downing Street memo leak. Clarey writes:

"And why not? The US Constitution outlines the grounds for impeachment thusly: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

President Clinton was impeached in 1998 by the House for perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power, though the Senate later acquitted him of these charges in a close vote. Richard Nixon, who resigned before the impeachment process reached a vote, also had charges of obstruction and abuse leveled against him.

Clinton had an affair with an intern. Nixon took the fall for a GOP rife with corruption and intrigue rather than give the names of his shady cronies, with whom he was inextricably linked. Both did what they could to prevent the truth from surfacing and both paid a price."

Unless I am mistaken, I believe this is the first newspaper I've seen to support an impeachment of Bush. There is a comment on the newpaper's website (after the article) by a "Jim McDermott." He doesn't identify himself as Congressman Jim McDermott, who has been an outspoken critic of the President. I can't help but wonder, though...


UPDATE: Dave Zweifel had this piece, titled "We've seen enough to impeach Bush," in the Madison Capitol Times on June 20th.

The Relevance of the Downing Street Memo

The Relevance of the Downing Street Memo

In November 2003, critics of the Iraq war could not believe their own ears. Neocon Richard Perle admitted, quite freely, that the attack upon Iraq was initiated with naked contempt for international law. He was proud of the part he had played in the illegal war.

At the time, defenders of the British government had said, in short, "Oh, no! Not Britain. We would never agree that the rule of law should be ignored, like the United States is doing."

The Downing Street memos show that Britain was, indeed, willing to participate in the political bamboozling of the masses in order to join the "US hegemon" in the war upon Iraq.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Perle gave away the game that day, and the Downing Street memos' leak has forever connected and sealed the Perle admission with the lies of Bush and Blair.

Read these excerpts from the Guardian article, November 20, 2003 (LINK):

"International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law..."

____________________


"..Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".
[*note: see Downing Street memos - the divergence in opinion may have been there, but the intent was to go along with the U.S. - regardless. The plan was to help the U.S. to establish a casus belli for war. They ultimately failed to convince the Security Council.]


The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat..."

Note: I rediscovered this Guardian article while going through my own archives here at Iddybud. Sometimes blogging really pays off.

The Iraq War: Where Are We Going With It?

The Iraq War:
Where Are We Going With It?

"I think it has been a remarkable success story to date when you look at what has been accomplished overall and I think the president deserves credit for it."

- Dick Cheney offers his assessment of US policy in Iraq in Autumn, 2004.

Statements like this one may have helped George W. Bush to win the 2004 American election (along with those "special" Diebold machines, a very Bush-friendly Ohio Attorney General, and scaring the living shit out of Americans with exaggerated tales of terror), but in the end, they have not helped him to convince the public that he is winning the fight for Iraq.

Bush's war has been a failure, so much so that the U.S. may now be resorting to the act of deliberately initiating civil war in Iraq in order to achieve its political goals.

Here's the conundrum: A powerful resistance front in Iraq, including the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) and the Sadrists, will refuse any kind of dialogue with Iraq's new Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari unless there's a definite timetable for the complete withdrawal of the occupation forces. Back in America, the public is screaming for a timetable for a pull-out of U.S. troops, and Republicans like Walter Jones of North Carolina are making public appeals in Congress for something concrete from the Bushites.

No one really seems to want the U.S. troops to be where they are today - except the neocons and the Bush administration, who sent the troops there on the wings of the most dreadful lie ever told to America.

In March, 2004, while Bush was preparing to return to the UN for the proposal of a new resolution, he had said:

"Al-Qaida wants us out of Iraq because al-Qaida wants to use Iraq as an example of defeating freedom and democracy." -(LINK)

We know this is not exactly the truth. It wasn't only Al-Qaida. An overwhelming number of everyday Iraqis would like the U.S. to leave.

Before the public lowers the boom on Bush - seeking to impeach him for the disaster he created when he misled the nation - his administration must find the fastest way out.

The American public thinks Iraq is a mess. Consult any current public poll and you'll see for yourself.

Sunni Arabs and Kurds are virtually on the brink of civil war in northern Iraq at this time. The Kurds claim the city of Kirkuk as their own, and they want Kirkuk to be the capital of the Kurdish region, a goal that inspires ire in most Iraqis. Kirkuk has been described, even by U.S. officials, as a “powder keg.” It also happens to sit on top of one of Iraq’s richest oilfields. What the Kurds want most of all is to control Northern Oil - part of the Iraqi National Oil Co, in charge of the oilfields west of Kirkuk. It is apparent that Sunni Arabs will not settle peaceably with the Kurds on this issue.

In the absence of a realistic political solution, Iraq may eventually be forced to disintegrate, which would be a geopolitical nightmare - destabilizing the entire Middle East. Interestingly, a significant number of Kurds would like to see this happen, after years of seeing their people murdered at the hands of brutal dictators. The Bush administration fears that self-determination, desired by most Kurds of northern Iraq, could lead to the establishment of an independent Kurdish state and seriously challenge US control of the oil resources of northern Iraq.

According to a June 10th article in the Asia Times by Pepe Escobar, there are neocon-friendly forces in Washington DC who are planning a "divide-and-rule" plan for Iraq, which would be a way to keep a weakened Iraq from being united and democratic, and this is in direct opposition to what the President has told the American people he wants to achieve. The objective would be "the perpetuation of Arab disunity."

Escobar says:

The plan would be "sold" under the admission that the recently elected, Shi'ite-dominated Jaafari government is incapable of controlling Iraq and bringing the Sunni Arab guerrillas to the negotiating table. More significantly, the plan is an exact replica of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan to balkanize Iraq - an essential part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East.

The act of the U.S. resorting to 'Iraqification' - using Shi'ites and Kurds to fight Sunnis - is a sign that we know we have lost any vision we may have had about "winning" the war. It has been an unwinnable war all along, and President Bush was never up-front with the American public about that fact. (Just as he was never up-front while leading the American masses toward war).

Escobar continues:

"Call it Iraqification; what it actually means is sectarian fever translated into civil war. Operation Lightning - the highly publicized counter-insurgency tour de force with its 40,000 mostly Shi'ite troops rounding up Sunni Arabs - can be read as the first salvo of the civil war......'Iraqification' means in fact 'Salvadorization'. No wonder old faces are back in the game."

Escobar writes that the Sunni-Arab guerillas "have the means to destabilize the country for decades, if they're up for it." If I am reading Escobar's Asia Times article correctly, and I hope it isn't true, then I can assume he is telling us that the U.S. desires to keep these diverse political terrorist-groups at each others' throats - which would mean a sustained civil war.

Many Kurds, who have hoped for independence, are dancing with anticipatory joy.
A Kurdish citizen in Iraq has written:

"...of the Kurds who took part in the elections, a whopping 98 % expressed a desire for a civil divorce. In the branch of science called politics, the fancy name for this kind of behavior is called self-determination. It is considered a political axiom in much of the world except in the lands administered by dictatorships. Now that Iraq is a ward of Uncle Sam, you would think that the Kurdish desire to go it alone would have been respected and accepted. ......to paraphrase Senator John Edwards, help is finally on its way to the Kurds and Kurdistan, and it is with some sadness that I note, not from the children of Jefferson, but from the disciples of enforced ignorance who have vowed to destroy Iraq. When their work is complete, we will take our place behind East Timor as the newest freed nation in the world. Then, and only then, I will rise for the dance of liberation and emancipation in honor of all those Kurdish patriots who shed their blood so that I could see freedom........I can’t wait for the RIP sign to rise over the abomination that cost five million Kurds of Iraq 250.000 deaths in 35 years on the watch of one monster from Tikrit. When that day comes, and if by some magic I were granted a wish, I would have loved nothing better to do than rush the news to the high heavens and inform Winston Churchill, the British Colonial Secretary, that his out of wedlock bastard has, finally, thank God, died. After rejoicing in his heartache, I would have looked up for Uncle Omar of Halapja and cheered him up with the good news that the flag of Kurdistan now flutters over the memorial that honors him and his friends in the city of Halapja."- By Kani Xulam, KurdishMedia.com

Nikolas K. Gvosdev, editor of The National Interest is not so sure that "democracy" will provide the solution to what ails Iraq. He says:

Consider Bosnia, where efforts to forge a unified country among three hostile ethno-religious groups has proven extremely difficult — even when the parties share a common language. We forget today how Bosnia's first free elections in November 1990 were cited as a triumph for democracy. Sixteen months later, Europe's most destructive conflict since the end of World War II erupted.

Bush was unprepared for what would happen once he sated his thirst for deliberate revenge and tackled Saddam, unilaterally, while lying our nation into the war. What he has done, by going into this half-assed, is to not only increase terrorism, but also to open Iraq up to civil war (whether it's intentional, as Escobar contends, or not). The greatly increased risk of political influence upon vulnerable regional Iraqi populations by anti-American forces in Middle Eastern nations (such as Iran) cannot extend a promise of security, stablity, freedom or democracy anytime soon.

Great job, Bush administration.

June Brashares, RNC Protestor, Goes On Trial

June Brashares, RNC Protestor, Goes On Trial

A trial in Manhattan's Criminal Court has begun for June Brashares, the Code Pink activist who was mauled on the floor of the Republican National Convention when young GOP goons realized she had gotten in with an anti-Bush sign. They ganged up on her and attacked her, literally dragging her from the convention hall. They're trying to say she had shoes on and kicked a man, but June has sworn she was weaering no shoes at the time - and an ABC reporter will be able to attest to that fact. Worse, June was injured herself - and it was captured on camera. You may wish to follow the developments of this case. The RNC would love to crucify her, I'm sure.

I'd recommend Rox Populi for a blogger's insight. There is a statement from Brashares at the blog, icluding this excerpt:

"..the courts shouldn’t be going after people for expressing their opinions at political events, we need justice in regards to the U.S. Administration that has lied and is lying about its actions that have resulted in the unnecessary death of thousands upon thousands of people."

DSM: White House Can't Raise a Reasonable Defense

DSM: White House Can't Raise a Reasonable Defense
So they spin and hope the media will comply, as they have in the past

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said that the Conyers letter was "simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed."

What do you do when "old debates" about a President's deliberate (political) intent to lie our nation into war, risking hundreds of thousands of precious lives, which was something we'd suspected he was doing all along, are confirmed by an official set of documents, leaked straight from the British government?

What if you'd suspected that someone had deliberately poisoned your family dog and, two years down the line, you received official evidence of the intentional killing? Would you simply say, "Aw, heck - that was something we'd discussed a long time ago" and forget about asking any more questions or seeking justice and/or reparation?

Come on, people. I don't think so.

There are some very lame defenses coming from the lips of Scott McLellan. The White House must be terribly worried about this Downing Street memo leak.

As a citizen stated in a letter to the St. Petersburg Times' editor recently,

"1,700 dead U.S. soldiers and 100,000-plus dead Iraqis, and [the Iraq war's] $300-billion price tag, was based on fabrications and plain old-fashioned lies."

..and another citizen writes:

"Years from now when our children and their children ask us what we did when we discovered that all the killing, maiming and destruction done in our names was based on faulty information, what will we say?"

Scott McLellan and the White House would tell you to tell your children it was just an old debate and that it never deserved to be revisited. I find no honor in that type of argument. How about you?


Story Linked at Common Ills

Fixed Means Just What You'd Think It Means

Fixed Means Just What You'd Think It Means

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey told MSNBC's Hardball host David Gregory that "fixed," the word used in the Downing Street memo, does not mean "cooking the books." Woolsey's defense is "British usage" of the word "fixed." Yet, British sources have confirmed the meaning of "fixed" and it isn't any different than the good old American definition. In the Downing Street memo, no matter how Bush-defenders slice and dice it, the word "fixed" envelops the scope of deliberate political manipulation...moving the masses toward a war they knew they were going to wage - a war that would be inevitable because, in the words of one of the British documents:

"In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon."

Woolsey told Hardball that he doesn't think there is really any basis for the allegation that "fixed" means "fixed", in the sense which we all understand the word. The contents of the documents prove his ridiculous claim as wrong. Media Matters provides a list of sources with information that directly refutes Woolsey's shallow defense.





This blogpost made 'Top Story' at Findory.com