Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Tuesday, 14 June 2005 at 17h 28m 31s|
There is a scientific reason
From The Artic Beacon, an Alaskan outfit.
Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition
And 'Inside Job'
Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts
official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence of cover-up
government foul play and possible criminal implications.
June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski
A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first
term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,'
saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers
and adjacent Building No. 7.
"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on
9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America
would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush
team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National
Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes
it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty
U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may
hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.
"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause
(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week
from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is
wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering
analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory
is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to
account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three
"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if
impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile,
the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get
the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."
However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains
challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been
intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.
From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel
caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have
disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since
most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.
Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and
the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence
contradicting the official version of 9/11.
Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:
Photos showing people walking
around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel
supposedly was burning..
When the South Tower was hit, most
of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes,
making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
The fire did not grow over time,
probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating
without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.
FDNY fire fighters still remain
under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard,
felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
Even the flawed 9/11 Commission
Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a
total collapse of either tower was possible."
Fire had never before caused steel-
frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has
fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
The fires, especially in the
South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane
and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story
steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires
but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
In a PBS documentary, Larry
Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11
about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for
It's difficult if not impossible
for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the
temperature of steel close to melting.
Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has
brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts,
speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an
airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened
structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper
floors to pancake onto the floors below.
One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials
engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse
occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-
bearing capacity on the structural frame.
Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to
the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees
Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear
to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.
Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes,
not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics
contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less
the entire structural system.
Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either
theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structural
steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that
crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or
shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.
And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally
officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 to
conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II."
Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel
quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS
and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.
In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition
theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.
"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour,
had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a
few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not,"
said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires
made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders,
to study what had happened.
"On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on
Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic
that 'beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary
exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.'
Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no
resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."
After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting
through all the available material, Reynolds concludes the government story
regarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect.
"In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of
the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight
93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything
recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground," said
Reynolds. "Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the
FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced
any report on the alleged airliner crashes."
For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com.
|Sunday, 12 June 2005 at 14h 8m 28s|
The three main human emotions
There has to be a symbiotic relationship between people and the
programs they chose to watch everyday. We exist in our true sense during every
moment underwhich we have freedom of choice. Those actions that result from
choices that we have made by ourselves are indicative of fundamental human
emotions and behaviors. To name a few: desire, love, and fear.
If we desire something, we find a way to either achieve or feel some sense of
achievement towards the desired goal or end result. The urges within us touch
our deepest sense of satisfaction.
Love is that non-thinking wholesome sense of peace and endearment as regards
another person, usually someone special in our own eyes. Fear is something
that pokes at us constantly, and is usually the result of a long evolved
insecurity which has obtained the fuel of desire.
This triad of deep human emotions are inter-related, thereby creating hybrids
of different human internalization packages. There can for instance be a
desire for love that is somehow entangled by a fear that no-one will love
thee. Or the love that you have for someone causes you to desire them even
more. Or you might fear love, and your actions thereby are the various subtle
forms of the desire to have escape-routes from long-term relationships.
There are 3 others, and these are the more deranged hybrids -- loving fear
causes one's desire for who knows what(yikes!!!), desiring fear causes one to
love/form relationships that enable this desire of fear (yikes!!!), and fear of
desire causes one to love/form relationships only when this fear is not
These are the three essential emotions for all movies and television programs --
and all plays and human modes of relating larger than life issues to one
This being said, what does it mean when people regularly watch television shows
like "Survivor" which pretends to be real, but is only real insofar as
you see what people will do in a ridiculous situation knowing the cameras are
filming, and also knowing that they will be alive one to three months
henceforth. Have we become Roman to the extent that we are watching
fake "survival" attempts -- in lieu of our being able to survive on our own for
the hour that it is on the television that night.
Some (if not most, or nearly all) of the "shows" on TV need the laugh tracks
and the dramatic music to remind us when to laugh and when to be afraid -- and
when to start feeling that thrilling life-changing moment that is being
dramatized with the faces of tele-thespians and the melodies of hip music.
More often it would probably be better if you spent the hour or so pondering
and experiencing these life-changing moments yourself, but my largest criticism
is that these life-changing moments are "crafted" and "focused" only upon what
we are viewing when we experience them through the television. We are
experiencing the life change without actually engaging in the moment, in that
the events do not come from our life's own real events. That we are reminded
of those events is not relevant, because we did not get there from our own
experiences but through the massaging of the TV programs and the television
Television obfuscates the relationship of the three emotions either by putting
them into unreal contexts, or by having to resort to a small fraction of
underlying events in order to a create the motion picture event. There is no
way one can hope that a 2 hour program can achieve an exactitude or
resemblance to the experience of an entire life, or the experience of a couple
months or years.
The point here is not to play the role of he Luddite. There is no realistic
hope that all of those TV sets and television stations out there are going to
suddenly desolve. However, we must understand that the TV is not just a mild
form of leisure activity. I am at odds with myself to suggest what should be
done because I would severely limit most television programming except sporting
events -- but not the internet or home DVD viewing. At the very least, I would
ban advertizing, because the number one culprit of subliminal stupidity comes
from the commercials.
This is where my thinking gets muddled. If the advertizing is banned, this
means that the television has 2 alternatives: 1) becoming cable-service, fee-
based, or 2) becoming owned by the federal government which then licenses the
right of the company to do business.
Hup, wait a minute, the government already has the authority of #2, so why
aren't advertizers banned from television except public service
announcements. I mean are we really benefitted by slanderous political
advertizing? But then I ponder what other form of mass media is there like
television. Mass mailing? Billboards? Newsprint ads? Magazine ads? Radio ad
spots? If you needed to get the message out to the masses, where would you go
that you couldn't go to already -- and would those other mediums be effective?
Considering that television as mass medium was not a reality until maybe the
later 1950s, you have to wonder. The rise of the "talkies" in the motion
picture industry led to the "weekly movie" phenomenom. People would also get
the weekly "news" in the process, because of the spots that would be played
before the main movie was shown -- just like the advertisements and
endless "previews" they show now for 15 minutes before they show every movie.
If television was banned, and only internet and DVD home-viewing were left, the
internet and DVD market would explode with independents everywhere. The news
media already presume themselves to be the bearers of the "national pulse."
Would the national pulse just disappear, or would there arise other more potent
forms that are more representative of the people's pulse? -- simply because
there would be other options.
|Friday, 10 June 2005 at 18h 42m 34s|
BEHIND TODAY'S FACADE OF DIVERSITY LIES
A NEARLY ALL-WHITE REPUBLICAN PARTY
One Percent of Republican Legislators in the States And Washington are African-
American or Hispanic
The uninformed viewer watching TV coverage of [the last] Republican national
convention in New York might come away thinking that the President's party is
built upon a solid commitment to inclusion of racial minorities. Once again, as
it does every four years, the Republican Party is trying to portray itself as
a 'big tent,' with room for every American.
But a new book about America's political divisions notes that the 99 percent of
all Republican legislators across the country and in Congress are white. The
national Republican Party, whose base is in the South, the Plains and the
Mountain states, looks to white men as its power base and source of leadership.
Even when Republican states have significant minority populations, the elected
Republican representatives rarely are drawn from those communities.
The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America, a new look at political divisions in
America by educator-entrepreneur Dr. John Sperling, calls those states 'Retro
America,' and notes: 'Its whiteness and maleness are mirrored in the Republican
Of 3,643 Republicans serving in the state legislatures, only 44 are minorities,
or 1.2 percent. In the Congress, with 274 of the 535 elected senators and
representatives Republican, only five are minorities - three Cuban Americans
from Florida, a Mexican American from Texas and a Native American senator
originally elected as a Democrat.[NOTE FROM JOHN: That means the GOP has
elected ZERO blacks to Congress.]
'President Bush's home state leads the way. Texas, with a minority population
of 47 percent, has 106 Republicans in the state legislature, but there are 0
blacks and 0 Hispanics among them,' Sperling writes. 'No major corporation
doing business with the government could be so white without being subject to
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) action!'
Oh that dastardly Howard Dean. Could it be that he "read" the book? Yet the
lousy scheming bastid's will still villify this good man for accurate
commentary, merely because they have a biased perspective.
We must fight. The alternative is truly slavery.
|Friday, 10 June 2005 at 17h 34m 34s|
There's a new thug in town
Boston radio host Jay Severin confirmed on the June 7 edition of MSNBC's
in the Morning that he would be a "permanent cast member" on MSNBC's new show
The Situation with Tucker Carlson. Severin, a former longtime Republican
political consultant who has worked for the presidential campaigns of George
H.W. Bush and Pat Buchanan, has a history of controversial comments, including
a suggestion on how to deal with Muslims in the United States: "I think we
should kill them."
Prior to hosting talk radio, Severin worked as a political advertising
consultant. Clients of his firm, Severin Aviles Associates, included George
H.W. Bush's 1980 presidential campaign and his political action committee (Fund
for America's Future); Pat Buchanan's 1996 presidential campaign; the
Republican National Committee; and the Reagan White House. [The Washington
Post, 3/19/98; National Journal, 12/10/88; Adweek, 8/4/86; Crain's New York
Among Severin's more controversial statements:
"A caller had recommended that we befriend Muslims living in the United States.
[Severin] said that, as far as he was concerned, 'the vast majority' of those
Muslims are not loyal to the United States and are ready, when the time comes,
to take over this country. [Severin] asked several times: 'Do you think we
should befriend them?' The caller said yes. [Severin] then said that he had an
alternative viewpoint: 'You think we should befriend them. I think we should
kill them.' " [The Boston Globe, 5/5/04, quoting from Severin's April 22, 2004,
He regretted calling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) a "lying bitch"
because "technically, it's a redundancy." [The Boston Globe, 3/21/01]
"I believe Al Gore would murder his daughter in order to become President."
[The Boston Globe, 3/21/01]
Called Al Gore "Al Whore." [The Boston Globe, 6/5/01]
"Hillary Clinton is the Antichrist to anyone who vaguely regards themselves as
a Republican. People who despise her will happily give money to derail her."
[The Boston Globe, 3/21/01]
"I said [former Massachusetts Gov.] Michael Dukakis should be arrested, tried,
convicted, and executed as an accessory to murder -- until I was educated by a
caller. Willie Horton, when he was let out of jail by the governor, only
assaulted, knifed, and raped people, but didn't kill them. So I said: 'OK,
Dukakis should only be sentenced to prison for a long time.' " Asked if the
statement was hyperbole, or if he meant it literally, he answered, "Literally."
[The Boston Globe, 3/21/01]
On the actions of President Clinton's defense lawyers during his Senate
impeachment trial: "I said the -- the Simpson -- the O.J. Simpson trial analogy
holds, as you said, at least in this regard. The Democrats, the president's
men, have effectively made Ken Starr into Mark Fuhrman." [The Geraldo Rivera
Show, syndicated, 3/4/98]
On whether a woman in a sexual harassment test case video had
said "no": "That's not the big 'no.' And our job as guys is to convert a
succession of 'nos' into one 'yes.' And to try and be as persuasive as possible
in making that happen. The fact is my job, my right, my duty as a guy is to
persuade girls to say yes." [NBC's Dateline, 10/24/97]
"Bill Clinton was as helpful to the defense in this trial as Mark Fuhrman was
to the prosecution in the O.J. trial," talking about the Arkansas cases of
former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and James and Susan McDougal on CNBC's
Rivera Live, 5/29/96. [Hotline, 12/20/96]
Severin, quoted in the political newsletter PulseLine: "Anyone who's for a
woman's right to have caps or get a nose job ... or have an abortion, it's all
the same thing. It's elective surgery." [Columnist Anna Quindlen, The New York
From the June 7 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
DON IMUS (host): Somebody told me you've been hired by MSNBC as a permanent
cast member on Tucker Carlson's fine new program entitled The Situation, which
will begin -- which will debut on June 13. Is that right?
SEVERIN: I plead guilty. That's true. I'm rejoining MSNBC for The Situation
with Tucker Carlson. And I can't wait.
IMUS: What will be your role there?
SEVERIN: I play the crazy brother-in-law.
IMUS: Oh, I see. Is this something you'll be able to do from Boston?
SEVERIN: I'll be doing it from -- no, I'll be live in the studio at [MSNBC]
world headquarters there in Secaucus [New Jersey]. So I'll be having to do the
radio show very frequently from Secaucus or New York.
IMUS: Oh, so this is a pretty good deal for you.
SEVERIN: Well, sure. I'm an old-time MSNBC guy.
IMUS: Right, so this could be a pretty good show, couldn't it?
SEVERIN: I think it's going to be great. Tucker is extraordinarily smart. He's
entertaining. He's quick. He's fun.
|Friday, 10 June 2005 at 17h 10m 53s|
Another Limbaugh lie
Here is Limbaugh trying to preserve the manufactured evil-Kerry
that he prevaricates. Oh what lies we spin to the national audience, and Radio
America -- which is the only station broadcast to U.S. troops. That's right.
Limbaugh is the official voice to the world representing the USA.
I feel sick.
How did he lie? Read below. It's from mediamatters.
Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely asserted that Sen. John
Kerry (D-MA) "did not get his Form 180 records released that show his naval
records" because the "records that he released only gave his grades from Yale."
In fact, Kerry authorized the full release of his military records to The
Boston Globe when he signed Standard Form 180, according to the Navy.
Though John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, co-authors of Unfit for Command:
Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Regnery, August 2004), have
responded to the Globe by insisting that the newly released documents do not
constitute Kerry's full military record, The New York Sun reported on June 9
that Kerry released his military records from both the National Personnel
Records Center in St. Louis and the Navy Personnel Command in Millington,
Tennessee, citing Navy spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Daniel Hernandez, who confirmed the
Globe's report that the documents it reviewed are Kerry's "whole record."
In separate June 7 articles, The Boston Globe reported that it had obtained
Kerry's complete military file, including medical and education records. The
Globe emphasized Kerry's mediocre grades over the report that his full military
records provided no new information about his service, even though the latter
revelation definitively proved that smears by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth during the presidential campaign were baseless.
From the June 9 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: [T]he Kerry story on the records is that, since you [caller] bring it
up. This is a, this is -- he's trying to fake everybody out. He did not get his
Form 180 records released that show his naval records. He didn't do that. He
has not come forth with that. The records that he released only gave his grades
from Yale. And he's hoping that this satisfied everybody. He still has not come
forth and signed what's necessary to produce his records in the Navy, and
that's what everybody's curious about.
You can listen to the audio clip here.
I hope this isn't shocking. He has been doing this everyday for more than 20
years. For any sane, decent person, it is obvious that Limbaugh lies and has
no integrity whatsoever. What does this say about those who do listen to him
On the Al Franken show, Franken's boyhood friend Mark is a self-
described "dittohead." Franken has his friend Mark on the show all the time,
and constantly points out the hypocrisy and falsehoods that Limbaugh utters
daily. Sometimes Mark admits that Rush is wrong (not "right" as his early
1990s ads portrayed on billboards everywhere.) But on most occasions, Mark
His reasoning goes something like this. What Rush actually says is not
important because it's the general philosophical idea that "Rush is trying to
talk about." Rush is a man on a mission to bring this higher cause down to
mother earth so accuracy is unimportant. And that is reason enough for Al
Franken's friend Mark.
So what we have here is a man who deliberately lies and misrepresents the daily
events, who construes life as some twisted morality, all of it a subterfuge for
his role in dissembling and spreading the propaganda to his duped, pavlovian
listerners that think he is a philosophical lodestone.
Wake up, he isn't. He's no more rock solid than a piece of shit.
|Thursday, 9 June 2005 at 17h 56m 6s|
He is not a diplomat. He is a petty-minded bully.
This is from Americablog.
George Bush has a pattern of coddling corrupt monarchies and military
dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Then he turns around and punishes
democracies that don't do exactly what he wants every single time. The latest
A number of nations believe the Security Council should be expanded from 15 to
25, with four new permanent members. Others think there should also be room for
two African countries, including possibly Egypt. Does Bush object to including
Egypt, a corrupt dictatorship that has strangled that nation's growth and
encouraged the growth of extremism in the Middle East? Nope. He saves his
firepower for Germany.
Germany has banded together with India, Japan and Brasil to jointly push for a
seat on the Security Council. They promise not to even ask for the right to a
veto for 15 years. Since Bush always insists that democracy is the key to a
safe and stable future, you'd think he would jump at the chance to give these
four stable democracies more influence and prestige. But no. Germany objected
to Bush invading Iraq and its leader even campaigned on anti-US sentiment. So
Bush is blocking Germany's bid and damn the consequences of international
security. Germany didn't play ball so they must be punished.
More proof? Bush is coddling the cruel government of Uzbekistan even as it
opens fire on its own citizens. Six senators are suggesting to Bush, gee, do we
really want to get into bed with such a sleazy government? It certainly proves
the lie that Bush wants to spread democracy. Really? By garnering a long-term
deal for a military base in a corrupt country that abuses human rights on a
More proof Bush hates democracy? He's stunned that the OAS (the Organization of
American States) laughed off Bush's suggestion that he "monitor" the growth of
democracy in the Americas. Gee, maybe it has something to do with the fact that
Bush supported a military coup in Venezuela because he didn't get along with
the democratically elected leader.
Did you catch all that? This is the man who executed a retarded woman named
Karla Fay Tucker in Texas, to the complete opproprium of the world when he was
governor. When asked by a reporter what he thought the executed woman's words
were, Bush inappropriately joked "Please don't kill me." He has executed 152
people more than any governor in the history of the United States.
You can read about the history here, and also how Alberto Gonzalez is involved (Gonzalez
was Bush's legal counsel as governor). Here's a unsavory morsel.
George W. Bush during his six years as governor of Texas presided over 152
executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United
States. Bush has said: "I take every death penalty case seriously and review
each case carefully.... Each case is major because each case is life or death."
In his autobiography, A Charge to Keep (1999), he wrote, "For every death
penalty case, [legal counsel] brief[s] me thoroughly, reviews the arguments
made by the prosecution and the defense, raises any doubts or problems or
questions." Bush called this a "fail-safe" method for ensuring "due process"
and certainty of guilt.
He might have succeeded in bequeathing to history this image of himself as a
scrupulously fair-minded governor if the journalist Alan Berlow had not used
the Public Information Act to gain access to fifty-seven confidential death
penalty memos that Bush's legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, whom President
Bush has recently nominated to be attorney general of the United States,
presented to him, usually on the very day of execution. The reports Gonzales
presented could not be more cursory. Take, for example, the case of Terry
Washington, a mentally retarded man of thirty-three with the communication
skills of a seven-year-old. Washington's plea for clemency came before Governor
Bush on the morning of May 6, 1997. After a thirty-minute briefing by Gonzales,
Bush checked "Deny"— just as he had denied twenty-nine other pleas for clemency
in his first twenty-eight months as governor.
This man is a borderline sadist. He is not a man of principle. He is not a man
of vision who follows his instincts -- well, maybe his instincts for the
jugular and the buttons he has to push. He is truly vindictive and
manipulative. He has very little empathy for anyone but his thirst to be the
master. His integrity is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. He lies as a
Sweet jesus, he is also our president.
|Tuesday, 7 June 2005 at 18h 50m 6s|
It's about paying for it
Schweitzer Tells Bush Off on Roadless Change
By Courtney Lowery, 6-07-05
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer has (figuratively) told President Bush to either
put up or shut up on the administration’s new roadless rule.
The administration announced last month that it had overturned the Clinton-era
roadless rule, opening up 58 million acres of roadless land in the West (6.9
million in Montana) to road building. That is, unless governors petition
otherwise. Governors now have 18 months to make the decisions on these lands, a
responsibility that does not sit well with Schweitzer.
“They’ve given me a broke-down baler and a vice-grip and told me to bale hay,”
Schweitzer told New West Tuesday afternoon.
In non-farmer terms, Schweitzer is saying the State of Montana has neither the
money nor expertise to deal with such a decision.
In a letter to President Bush, Schweitzer writes “The Forest Service has been
trying to resolve this issue for upwards of 30 years with little to no success.
With each succeeding plan, the issues have become more contentious and
irreconcilable. Now your administration, without the benefit of public
hearings, has issued a final rule that asks the states to shoulder this burden
both administratively and financially.”
Other state's are of course struggling with the new rule as well. Colorado
already has a commission created to help with the process, but the other states
either aren't sure what to do or aren't particularly happy with change. (With
the exception of Idaho's Dirk Kempthorne, who loves the new rule, surprise,
surprise.) Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal echoed Schweitzer's sentiments, saying
right after the announcement, “This is really a costly exercise in futility for
the states and a mechanism for the Forest Service to deflect political
The Schweitzer's office points out that in Montana alone, the Forest Service
employs 2,375 people, with a budget of more than $47 million. And those
employees are experts in making such decisions – hydrologists, foresters,
biologists, entomologists … “you have it they’ve got it,” Schweitzer said.
“I have one guy,” he added, meaning natural resource advisor Mike Volesky.
Schweitzer asks in the letter that the administration shop out the Forest
Service’s expertise and budget to help the governors make the decision.
If the administration wants governors to make the call, Schweitzer said, “They
can just detail for the forest service, then we’ll do it for them.” But that’s
something the Governor doesn’t think will happen anytime soon, so he’s setting
out this summer to meet with county commissioners across the state to gather
information about how Montanans want their roadless areas managed. It’s an
attempt, he said, to “hold this farm together with a little baling wire.”
Schweitzer is very obviously leaning toward trying to keep Montana’s roadless
areas as is. In his letter to Bush, he details how important these areas are
for “family recreation” and he points out that already, the Forest Service has
a $588 million backlog in Montana of existing forest roads needing work. By
putting more money into maintaining existing roads, Schweitzer said, we’d still
be creating more jobs for rural Montana and we wouldn't be building new, more
In the end, it will still be the administration's call whether or not the areas
stay roadless, another thing that sticks in Schweitzer's craw. Once the
petitions are made, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns still has the right
to yay or nay the petition. If the petition is a yay, it then all goes to the
Forest Service's rule making process.
(Sidenote: Schweitzer used the situation to use one of his "remember in high
school?" moments, in which he likened the situation to a principal and the
superintendent asking the student council to draw up an idea on an issue and
when it does, the principal says "Ah, I don't like this" anyway. Good analogy,
"I get the responsibility, but not the authority," he said.
This whole thing, Schweitzer said, is a trend with the Bush Administration –
turning over burdens to governors with no money to match.
“It’s just another unfunded mandate. ‘They say ‘you’re responsible but we’re
not helping and we’re taking away your assets,’” he said. “This is an
administration that has it all backward. Remember Truman? … This administration
says ‘by the way, I’m passing the buck to you.”
Cases in point: Amtrak reform, roadless area, national security (Schweitzer
points out that as the administration tells states they have to do their own
homeland security and natural disaster relief, it simultaneously takes away the
National Guardsmen and women and the aircraft the state uses to battle forest
fires, an issue that has had the Governor hot under the collar more than once.)
He’s happy to have local control, but Schweitzer says the federal government is
forgetting that states can’t just print up more money when someone has a new
idea like the administration can in D.C.
“I have to deal with real dollars, real people, real problems and come up with
real products,” he said.
|Tuesday, 7 June 2005 at 18h 30m 32s|
Kerry releases records ... now?
Of course, he was completely vindicated. [LINK] This
is Michael Kranash at the Boston Globe.
The records...are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004
campaign for president.
....The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in
the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive
privacy restrictions. An earlier release of the full record might have helped
his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service.
....But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included
commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him.
Huhn? The man can't be this incompetant. The Kerry campaign was all a hoax to
steal the flame from the Dean prarie wildfire. Remember that Dean started
becoming "unpopular" because of "the scream."
And that scream was not really a scream at all. You see the scream played
1,000 times by the news media was the raw audio of the microphones. In the
room full of people where the event took place, Dean was not shouting but
articulating his voice.
Dean was taken down, and Kerry was pushed as his patsy.
Kerry has also said that he is going to bring up the Downing Street memo on the
floor of the Senate. When will that be Senator Kerry? How many more deaths
will you allow because you are either blinded by political ambitions, or you
are corrupted yourself? Neither of those reason are honorable, Mr. Kerry.
Imagine the devastation had Kerry simply stood up to the Swiftboat liars and
said "Fine, release all of my records, and let the chips fall where they lay."
Once those commendations were noticed, the egg on Bushes face would have
congealled -- especially after the revelation that a close Bush re-election
lawyer was also doing the legal work for the Swiftboat liars.
What did you do, Senator Kerry, make a deal with your ole fellow Skull and
Bones Yale boy? Did they sell you on 2008 if you played the Democratic
|Tuesday, 7 June 2005 at 18h 3m 28s|
Don't look now, more corruption is on the way
Quick, find another news item that we can blast all week long.
From the Washington Post [LINK]. The report "provides an extraordinary glimpse of how
the Air Force worked hand-in-glove with one of its chief contractors -- the
financially ailing Boeing -- to help it try to obtain the most costly
government lease ever."
For the past three years, the Air Force has described its $30 billion proposal
to convert passenger planes into military refueling tankers and lease them from
Boeing Co. as an efficient way to obtain aircraft the military urgently needs.
But a very different account of the deal is shown in an August 2002 internal e-
mail exchange among four senior Pentagon officials.
"We all know that this is a bailout for Boeing," Ronald G. Garant, an official
of the Pentagon comptroller's office, said in a message to two others in his
office and then-Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Wayne A. Schroeder
Besides documenting precisely who was responsible, the new report details the
Air Force's vigorous efforts on Boeing's behalf. It also shows how Air Force
leaders and Boeing officials jointly manipulated legislation to authorize the
deal and later sought to suppress dissenting opinion throughout the Pentagon.
The report also connects Rumsfeld to policymaking on the lease, recounting a
statement by former Air Force secretary James G. Roche that Rumsfeld had called
him in Newport, R.I., in July 2003 to say "he did not want me to budge on the
tanker lease proposal," despite criticism.
In the copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post, 45 sections were
deleted by the White House counsel's office to obscure what several sources
described as references to White House involvement in the lease negotiations
and its interaction with Boeing. The Pentagon separately blacked out 64 names
and many e-mails. It also omitted the names of members of Congress, including
some who pressured the Pentagon to back the deal.
The report is nonetheless the most damning of the three reviews of the tanker
deal completed by the inspector general since early 2004. It includes, for
example, a statement from an unnamed cost analyst that "numbers were contorted
a lot of different ways to sell the program."
It also suggests that the foundation of the Air Force's tanker lease -- that KC-
135 planes were experiencing unexpected corrosion and needed urgent
replacement -- was a house of cards.
The report says that Marvin R. Sambur, then the top Air Force acquisition
official, knew that this urgency "did not exist" but claimed otherwise and
ordered data unflattering to the deal removed from a key document. His office
made what a critic of the lease elsewhere in the Pentagon interpreted as
a "thinly veiled threat" to manipulate other Air Force contracts if the dissent
did not cease, the report shows.
The inspector general's report makes it clear that the Air Force's aggressive
pursuit of the lease over a three-year period was actually a team effort,
Of course, that's how these people work.
You can read the Inspector Generals report here. It's a 270 page PDF report.
|Tuesday, 7 June 2005 at 17h 47m 16s|
Bush quotes about Iraq
This is from Thinkprogress.org. [LINK]
The Downing Street Memo reported that in a July 23, 2002 meeting
between Prime Minister Blair and his war cabinet, attendees of the meeting
discussed the fact that President Bush had already made up his mind to attack
Iraq. According to the minutes of the meeting:
“There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as
inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action.”
Yet, as the record below proves, President Bush claimed over and over after
July 23rd until the war began that he had not made up his mind.
Bush: “Of course, I haven’t made up my mind we’re going to war with
Bush: “Hopefully, we can do this peacefully – don’t get me wrong. And if
world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on
Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there’s a chance he may decide to do
that. And war is not my first choice, don’t – it’s my last choice.” [11/7/02]
Bush: “This is our attempt to work with the world community to create
And the best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. It’s up to him
to make his decision.” [12/4/02]
Bush: “You said we’re headed to war in Iraq – I don’t know why you say
hope we’re not headed to war in Iraq. I’m the person who gets to decide, not
you. I hope this can be done peacefully.” [12/31/02]
Bush: “First of all, you know, I’m hopeful we won’t have to go war, and
leave it at that.” [1/2/03]
Bush: “But Saddam Hussein is – he’s treated the demands of the world as
up to now, and it was his choice to make. He’s the person who gets to decide
war and peace.” [2/7/03]
Bush: “I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this
done peacefully.” [3/6/03]
Bush: “I want to remind you that it’s his choice to make as to whether
we go to war. It’s Saddam’s choice. He’s the person that can make the choice of
war and peace.” [3/6/03]
Bush: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if
Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” [3/8/03]
Bush: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people
that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken
to win it.” [3/17/03]
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS