Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Tuesday, 22 November 2005 at 22h 24m 3s|
Jean is full of Schmidt
This comes from Thinkprogress [SOURCE] and the Washington Monthly [SOURCE]
Marine Quoted By Schmidt Says He Never Mentioned Murtha
During Rep. Jean Schmidt’s (R-OH) shameful attack on Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) on
the House Floor she said she was communicating a message from Marine Colonel
This is what Jean Schmidt said:
A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio
Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked
me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send
Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny
and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that
we will see this through.
Bubp denies he said that [SOURCE -- Cincinnati
Danny Bubp, a freshman state representative who is a colonel in the Marine
Corps Reserve, told The Enquirer that he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D-
Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt…”There was no discussion of him
personally being a coward or about any person being a coward,” Bubp said.
And further, from the NYTimes: [SOURCE -- at bottom of page]
...a spokeswoman for the colonel, Danny R. Bubp, said Ms. Schmidt had
misconstrued their conversation.
While Mr. Bubp, a Republican member of the Ohio House of Representatives,
opposes a quick withdrawal for forces, "he did not mention Congressman Murtha
by name nor did he mean to disparage Congressman Murtha," said Karen Tabor, his
spokeswoman. "He feels as though the words that Congresswoman Schmidt chose did
not represent their conversation."
One picture is the screed ... the other is for the cameras.
How about those eerie, scary blue-ish eyes looking up at ... "God" ? Receiving
signals from alien invaders? Seeing a golf ball coming at her from above? I
wonder how many photos had to be taken before they got her head tilted at just
the right angle, with just the right pose.
She's a front. She was the candidate that had to beat Iraq vet Paul Hackett
(with possible help, thanks to an 11th hour shift of 4,000 votes by the
computer counting - Diebold - machines in Ohio.
The 2nd Congressional District is East of Cincinnati, along the Ohio River.
Some Excerpts from the House Rules and Manual that Jean should read:
"In the practice of the House, a member is not permitted to refer to another
member by name, or to address him in the second person. The proper reference to
another member is 'the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from ...,' naming the
"By rule of the House, as well as by parliamentary law, personalities are
forbidden, whether against the member in the member's capacity as
representative or otherwise, even if the references may be relevant to the
pending question. The House has censured a member for gross personalities. The
chair may intervene to prevent improper references where it is evident that a
particular member is being described. The chair does not rule on the veracity
of a statement made by a member in debate. Although accusing another member of
deceit engages in personality, merely accusing another member of making a
mistake does not.
"A member may not read in debate extraneous material critical of another
member, which would be improper if spoken in the member's own words."
And remember, Murtha is merely conveying what will happen eventually. He is
not "cutting and running" like a "coward." This insidious wench was merely
trying to help the Rethuglican "team" gain political points, since in her mind
this is a vituperative trench fight not a rational discussion about policy
decisions. And her insistence that "we see this through" was more for the
purpose of insisting that congressman Murtha said otherwise.
This is how the party "strategists" (goons??) create an opposition movement by
allocating to "the opponent" an untruth, whilst the wily politician takes the
truth position for themself.
These are the games they play. They don't listen to you. You are the enemy.
While you are speaking, their minds are spinning trying to figure out their
next counter move -- so of course they don't really hear a word you say.
|Monday, 21 November 2005 at 19h 42m 3s|
Roll out the presses, xmas shoppers are on the march
|Monday, 21 November 2005 at 19h 43m 48s|
They are foolish and have no shame
Who are these people, standing
Murtha's 37 years of Marine service and playing word games by accusing his bill
as "cutting and running."
Then, on Friday, the Republican leadership attempts to sneak a "substitute"
bill drawn up by California Republican Duncan Hunter (boo, hiss) by calling a
vote on the resolution. Thankfully
representative Lantos was keen enough to ask what bill was before the House,
and thus forcing the House speaker to legally state the bill. [SOURCE] Had the vote occurred, Democrats could have been
lured into thinking they voted for another bill. This trick has been pulled by
the Republicans -- and Lyndon Baines Johnson even -- before. Thankfully,
Lantos was wise to them this time.
Good thing too, because the two resolutions are very different.
Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to
withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date."
It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in
the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through
The Republican alternative: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives
that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
That's the entire Hunter resolution by the way. We get "the sense." Which
sense, the sense of "smell" -- cause that's what this does, it smells.
Congressman Duncan Hunter,52nd District of California
(East of San Diego)
" Believe everything they tell me to say. Trust me. The honesty and
integrity will become more obvious as my hands approach one another while I am
This is the same Duncan Hunter who earlier in the year read the menu of the
Guantanamo Prisoners, so as to dispel any notions that prisoner abuse and
torture were not occuring merely because he is reading a "menu" given to him
purporting to come directly from spot. He recently also sponsored building
a "wall" along the entire border between Mexico and the United States.
Sounds like the Berlin Wall to me, Mr. HUNTER.
Keep in mind that this is the chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee during this time of egregious corruption in the sub-contracting
process of military procurement, and when 9 billion of 18 billion to be spent
cannot be accounted for and in which was specifically written by law to be
spent on Reconstruction in Iraq.
Accordingly "snake-oil" salesman Rep. Duncan Hunter R-Calif., chairman of the
House Armed Services Committee, said that the above resolution vote was not a
is not an attack on an individual. This is a legitimate question," he said, in
the sourced article.
Oh really? So if it is a "legitimate question" then why try to sneak in an
resolution without making clear which resolution, Hunter's or Murtha's was
about to be voted upon. You see how this works, eh. Those who did not pay
attention, only thought the fight was about some "legitimate question," when
the fight was really about the secretive tactics. This is how these
Rethuglicans (damn near everyone) and a few spineless Democrats (Lieberman and
Biden) play the game. They know that at least 80% of the people will not know
the details or even the actual series of events, so what the TV audiences and
the corporate newspapers get is the offsetting quotes -- with very little or
not enough background information.
(Which is why the sourced yahoo article comes from a writer of the
Associated Press -
- the "associated" means some writer wrote another story and distributed it
across the wire, as opposed to a writer from the staff of a particular
85 to 90 percent of the article is a quotation, or mentions conflicts and
disagreements in lieu of a quotation without detailing either conflict or
It's like, He said,she said, he said, oh and by the way 1+1=2, and then
finally, he said. Story over.
Uh .... hello! Who cares what the @*$$!* he or
she said, what the hell happened !!!!
Just look how the article describes the voting scenario. Each of the bolded
parts are deliberate subjective choices of description
The Republican-controlled House spurned calls for an immediate pullout
of troops from Iraq in a vote hastily arranged [ie, not forced by the
Murtha resolution] by the GOP that Democrats vociferously denounced as
...Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that
prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the
...The House action came in a week that also saw the GOP-controlled Senate
defeat a Democratic push for President Bush to lay out a timetable for
withdrawal. Instead, senators approved a statement that 2006 should
be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased
withdrawal of U.S. forces.
...In little more than 24 hours, Hastert and Republicans decided to put the
question to the House.
...Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position — either
supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it
and angering voters who want an end to the conflict. They also hoped the
vote could restore GOP momentum on an issue — the war — that has seen
plummeting public support in recent weeks.
Democrats said it was a sham and quickly decided to vote against the resolution
in an attempt to drain it of significance.
Nowhere in this damn piece of $#@@**!% article are the major facts that
occurred. The Republicans tried to put their own Resolution before the vote
without making clear what was being voted upon. That resolution was one
sentence long and only conveyed "a sense" of doing something. And the Murtha
resolution was not a call for immediate withdrawal, as the Hunter resolution
suggests with a "sense". But apparently, according to
the ap writer "Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing
position — either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be
precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the
Indeed, was that the choice according to the ubiquitous "critics" ? A choice
between a "precipitous" withdrawal or "angering voters." Was that the choice?
Thank you bullshit ap hack writer for such an insightful clue about your true
purpose on the ap wire. Notice that in the paragraph above I can summarize in
3 sentences what you could not even mention in the entirety of your epic
whitewashing of the event.
However, the Republican's got other strings to pull, and quickly get on the
trail of yet another auspicious ethics
probe ... ?
From Roll Call (the House record of business each day):
GOP Lawmakers Float Ethics Probe of Murtha Republican lawmakers say that ties
between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA
Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.
So they go around attacking the credentials and ideas of John Murtha and then
they try to sneak through a fake bill so they don't have to vote on the
real "Murtha bill" ...
argh, this truly is disgusting.
Our boys are dying because they can't accept reality without first trying to
milk the events for some political gain. This is not about "cutting and
running." This is about redeployment. According to the Pentagon, no amount of
time or addition of troops will improve the situation in Iraq. The troops will
be drawn down and redeployed by the military anyway. Murtha is just saying
publically what is already in the works.
But these Republicans have to take their politics to the level of sewage pipes
underneath the streets. But then that is where the rats live and breed, so go
|Saturday, 19 November 2005 at 12h 1m 55s|
Da Prez meets regular guy fo uh be-air
Ever get that down to Earth feeling?
Go here to read more ...
The Onion story behind this mythical meeting by Bush with a "regular Joe" is
hilarious, and quite true, even if the actual event did not really occur.
Sometimes the truth is more relevent in fiction than real life, because one's
loyalties and misconceptions can be stripped free of their symbolism.
|Saturday, 19 November 2005 at 11h 50m 23s|
Why did they out Valerie Plame again?
From _Dave in Half Moon Bay
Just to add a little detail to my claim that Plame was outed because she had
the BFEE from planting WMD, here's one place I saw an example by Wayne Madsen:
"According to U.S. intelligence sources, the White House exposure of Plame and
Brewster Jennings was intended to
retaliate against the CIA's work in limiting the proliferation of WMDs. The
CIA Counter-Proliferation Division prevented
the shipment of binary VX nerve gas from Turkey into Iraq in November 2002.
The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey
was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and
later used as evidence that Saddam was
in possession of WMDs. U.S. intelligence sources revealed that this was a major
reason Bush targeted Plame and her network."
|Thursday, 17 November 2005 at 22h 21m 25s|
The propaganda machine at work
This is from a recent ROLLING STONE article, By JAMES BAMFORD. [
On December 17th, 2001, in a small room within the sound of the crashing tide,
a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man
sitting pensively in a padded chair. The officer then stretched a black rubber
tube, pleated like an accordion, around the man's chest and another across his
abdomen. Finally, he slipped a thick cuff over the man's brachial artery, on
the inside of his upper arm.
Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-
three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now
determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses
traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive
tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly
that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam's men to secretly bury tons
of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-
Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even
stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in
It was damning stuff -- just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was
looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a
compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That's why the Pentagon had
flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm,
once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass
There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks
and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded
that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of
securing a visa.
The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee
trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn't
true didn't mean it couldn't be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the
product of a clandestine operation -- part espionage, part PR campaign -- that
had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose
of selling the world a war. And the man who had long been in charge of the
marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington
establishment named John Rendon.
Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months
before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded
him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with
propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader
in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating
information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired
result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts
since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the
removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of
secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally
gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their
media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against
Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs
operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson.
Oh, and that is just the beginning 5 per cent. There is a whole lot more, read on.
|Thursday, 17 November 2005 at 21h 58m 1s|
Proverbs, Chapter 6
Thanks to the passionate and knowledgeable Mike Malloy, I can
Biblical scripture from the Proverbs, Chapter 6 verses #16 - #19.
There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood.
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
By the way, I find the New American Standard Bible much better than the often
cryptic and hard to decipher King James Version.
|Thursday, 17 November 2005 at 20h 21m 31s|
Supermarket meat may not be so fresh
The source can be found here , Capiltal Hill Blue.
Under little-noted rulings over the last three years, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has allowed meat processors to use small amounts of carbon
monoxide to maintain the red color in fresh meat sold in pre-assembled or "case-
Such packages are airtight containers assembled with the product at meat-
packing plants and are not made to be reopened until they are sold to
consumers. Some packages are marketed for up to 35 days, or 28 days in the case
of ground beef.
Kalsec, a food-and-spice company based in Kalamazoo, Mich., is protesting the
FDA action, saying the carbon-monoxide treatment is an illegal additive to
fresh meat that disguises the freshness of the meat and hides spoilage.
"Color is the indicator consumers use most often to determine if meat is
fresh," said Don Berdahl, Kalsec's vice president. He explained that carbon-
monoxide gas reacts with the pigment of the blood in meat and gives it a deep
red color that can fool shoppers.
The company also charged that the practice is not safe and can hide the growth
of dangerous pathogens like botulinum, salmonella and E. coli.
Kalsec wants the FDA to either rescind its approval of the use of carbon
monoxide or require meat packers to label treated product to alert consumers.
The FDA has not objected to companies using carbon monoxide as a processing aid
in several cases over the last three years, ruling that the gas is in the
category of "substances generally recognized as safe" and so not requiring
complete regulatory review.
Of course the idea is to cut the butcher staff at the stores. My best friend
has been a butcher for the last 15 years. He's told me the whole story of how
the large big box market corporations have turned his profession from one of an
entire staff cutting the meat fresh from the carcasses that came two or three
times a week, into just him and two other shift workers opening pre-packaged,
pre-cut meat in seated containers. Mexican workers in the plants at the border
cost 5 to 10% what the cost of the butcher staff workers cost you see. The
modern butcher has turned into a customer service representative.
So you buy the bright red meat that happens to be 28 days from being cut and
packaged and then put it in the fridge for a day or more before eating it. And
when you get diarrhea or feel slightly ill, did you inaccurately attribute the
illness to ... the flu? This happens more often then you think.
|Thursday, 17 November 2005 at 21h 34m 16s|
God bless you, Congressman John Murtha
Democratic Congressman John Murtha (D - Pennsylvania) gave a press conference
today introducing his resolution for redeployment of American troops in
Iraq. He is a decorated Vietnam veteran, was in the United States Marine Corps
for 30 years, and has been a Congressmen for 36 years.
Read the full speech here.
Or ... Link to cnn video of speech is here.
Some choice exerpts :
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in
illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and
coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in
direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We
cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military
action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi
people or the Persian Gulf Region.
"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, "the perception of occupation
in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." General Abizaid said
on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in
Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."
"We spend more money on Intelligence that all the countries in the world
together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the
intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure.
It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.
"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot
be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military
is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that
the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment.
Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense
budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health
care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to
our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health
care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military
dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has
caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.
"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous
overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one
of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out Army. Our
deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget
Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the
coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years
of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a
draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and
their families are shouldering this burden.
"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees,
Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in
Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today.
But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied
against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are
the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe
with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized
to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are
strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi
population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we
need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections,
scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must
be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq
must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this
will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of
a "free" Iraq.
"My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S.
troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force
in the region.
To create an over-the-horizon
presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security
and stability in Iraq.
"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the
severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into
battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's
why I am speaking out.
"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not
accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."
Enough said. Thank you Congressman John Murtha.
|Wednesday, 16 November 2005 at 21h 31m 10s|
Steven Jones, patriot
You need to go here and read about why Brigham Young physics professor
Steven Jones has a different opinion about why the buildings in New York City
fell on September 11th. Let's just say that I agree.
Also, in support of Steven Jones, go here , a response to a puerile popular mechanics article,
whose writers thought they had a clue merely because (on the 9th page)
they "consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in [this] investigation
into 9/11 conspiracy theories."
Well god damn Junior, seems like they must be legit since they got 300 idiots
out there who can't tell a fact from a press release.
Here's the link to the original popular mechanics article
of which I speak.
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS