frankilin roosevelt

It's not about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.

Check out my old  Voice of the People page.

Gino Napoli
San Francisco, California
High School Math Teacher

Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington

1093 POSTS

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
September 2014
August 2014
May 2014
March 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
August 2009
July 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

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 indicate 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 buildings.

"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 demolish it.

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

Greg Szymanski

Sunday, 12 June 2005 at 14h 8m 28s

The three main human emotions

There has to be a symbiotic relationship between people and the television 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 addressed.

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 another.

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 advertising.

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

Simple statistics

From americablog.


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 Party.'

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

from mediamatters.

Boston radio host Jay Severin confirmed on the June 7 edition of MSNBC's Imus 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 Business, 11/30/87]

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, radio show]

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 Times, 4/9/94]

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 image so hard 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 regularly?

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 disagrees.

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 example: Germany.

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 grand scale?

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.[1] 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 reflex manuever.

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 [LINK]

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 pressure."

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 expensive roads.

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 thought.)

"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 candidate?

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 [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 Iraq.” [10/1/02]

Bush: “Hopefully, we can do this peacefully – don’t get me wrong. And if the 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 peace. 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 that. I 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 let’s leave it at that.” [1/2/03]

Bush: “But Saddam Hussein is – he’s treated the demands of the world as a joke 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 can be done peacefully.” [3/6/03]

Bush: “I want to remind you that it’s his choice to make as to whether or not 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 Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” [3/8/03]

Bush: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.” [3/17/03]