Fascinating, isn’t it?
I guess we’ll be seeing another round of tax cuts for the well off. That’s just the sacrifice they’ll have to make. We all have to make sacrifices in these troubled times. But as we know that they’re all superior beings, much better than the worker classes, that they’ll shoulder the burden with their usual elan. –TM
US government warns it's running out of cash
Fri Dec 30, 2005
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051230/ts_afp/uspoliticseconomy_051230161316
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Treasury Secretary John Snow has warned that unless Congress raises the national debt limit, the US government will run out of cash to finance its daily work in two months.
In a letter to Senate leaders Thursday, Snow said the statutory debt limit imposed by Congress of 8.184 trillion dollars would be reached in mid-February and the government would then lose its borrowing power.
"At that time, unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations," said the letter, seen by AFP.
Snow warned that even if the Treasury took "all available prudent and legal actions" to avoid breaching the ceiling, "we anticipate that we can finance government operations no longer than mid-March".
"Accordingly, I am writing to request that Congress raise the statutory debt limit as soon as possible."
The Republican-led Congress last voted to increase the debt limit in mid-November 2004, despite opposition from Democrats who demanded the free-spending federal government tighten its belt instead.
The US debt limit sparked bitter partisan battles in the mid-1990s between a Republican-dominated Congress and the Democratic administration of president Bill Clinton, leading to shutdowns of the federal government.
Once the US government hits the ceiling, it comes under threat of defaulting on its debts and can lose the ability to raise future credit on the capital markets.
Snow underlined that the "full faith and credit of the United States" was a unique selling point on the markets.
"A failure to increase the debt limit in a timely manner would threaten this unique and important position," he wrote in his letter.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Blairwatch
12/30/05
Background:
The UK government has been quick to deny that we practice, or tolerate the practice of Torture. So it is perhaps not suprising that they are determined that you should not see the following documents:
http://users.pandora.be/quarsan/craig/telegrams.pdf
http://users.pandora.be/quarsan/craig/npaper.jpg
Craig Murray was the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, untill his complaints and protest at the use of intelligence gained by torture got too much for Jack Straw and the Foreign Office, who set about attempting to unsuccessfully smear him, and to successfully remove him from office.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3750370.stm
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/04/timeline_of_cra.html
The Foreign Office has had the draft of Craig's book for clearance for over 3 months now, and they are doing everything they can to try and prevent him from publishing his side of the story. Their latest attempt to cover their own backs was to inform him, the night before Christmas Eve, that these two documents cannot be published, and that he was to return or destroy all copies immediately.
...
The obvious answer to this is to post these documents as widely on the web as possible. This is also potentially very valuable in establishing that I am not attempting to make money from these documents - you don't have to buy my book to see them, they are freely available. If you buy the book, you are only paying for the added value of my thoughts.
This will only work if we can get the [documents] very widely posted, including on sites in the US and elsewhere outside the UK …
***
I've downloaded the documents from the Blairwatch site [www.blairwatch.co.uk], and posted them at the Guerrilla Campaign in PDF format.
http://tmars.iwarp.com/guerrilla_campaign/blairwatch/051230-Blairwatch.html
Background:
The UK government has been quick to deny that we practice, or tolerate the practice of Torture. So it is perhaps not suprising that they are determined that you should not see the following documents:
http://users.pandora.be/quarsan/craig/telegrams.pdf
http://users.pandora.be/quarsan/craig/npaper.jpg
Craig Murray was the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, untill his complaints and protest at the use of intelligence gained by torture got too much for Jack Straw and the Foreign Office, who set about attempting to unsuccessfully smear him, and to successfully remove him from office.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3750370.stm
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/04/timeline_of_cra.html
The Foreign Office has had the draft of Craig's book for clearance for over 3 months now, and they are doing everything they can to try and prevent him from publishing his side of the story. Their latest attempt to cover their own backs was to inform him, the night before Christmas Eve, that these two documents cannot be published, and that he was to return or destroy all copies immediately.
...
The obvious answer to this is to post these documents as widely on the web as possible. This is also potentially very valuable in establishing that I am not attempting to make money from these documents - you don't have to buy my book to see them, they are freely available. If you buy the book, you are only paying for the added value of my thoughts.
This will only work if we can get the [documents] very widely posted, including on sites in the US and elsewhere outside the UK …
***
I've downloaded the documents from the Blairwatch site [www.blairwatch.co.uk], and posted them at the Guerrilla Campaign in PDF format.
http://tmars.iwarp.com/guerrilla_campaign/blairwatch/051230-Blairwatch.html
Thursday, December 29, 2005
War Resister Jerry Texiero, the Marine Corps and Who Betrayed Whom?
By: Jack Dalton
12/29/05
“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” Henry Kissinger as quoted in the book “Kiss the Boys Goodbye"
Just when was it we in this nation lost our ability to choose if and when we would be willing to kill another human being, or be killed ourselves? When was it that following the “rules” became more important than following what is right? Case in point: Jerry Texiero; who as an active duty Marine in 1965 refused to deploy to Vietnam and took off (For details see: Marine Refuser From 40 Years Ago Faces Court Martial). 40 years later the Marine Corps has Jerry incarcerated at the Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Why would the Marine Corps take so much interest in Jerry Texiero and want to court-martial him 40 years later, when we all know for absolute fact the ‘American War On Vietnam’ was contrived, a war crime on a grand scale, and a war in some ways that has never ended? After all, the Agent Orange we “salted” the earth with in Vietnam is still killing large numbers of people there, as well as here with veterans of that mess; thousands have been and still are being killed by all the unexploded ordinance and land mines all over the country, especially in Quang Tri Province.
The Marines want to court-martial Jerry to send a message to the growing number of active duty military, who are becoming resistive to their participation in this new war of choice in Iraq, that if they are unwilling to deploy to Iraq, they will suffer the same fate as Sgt Kevin Benderman, who is doing 15 months at the RCF (or Gulag if you prefer as do I); If they take off, they will be hunted for the rest of their lives, like Jerry Texiero.
The military, the Department of War and the Pentagon are in serious manpower trouble and they need to make examples of people for the purpose of intimidation and coercion—make them afraid to do anything but “follow orders”; to send a loud message to others so they will not follow the example of people of conscience. That’s why Sgt Benderman is in jail, and why the Marine Corps wants to court-martial Jerry Texiero.
Two different men separated by 40 years; two different created wars and both are being “beat up” by an out of control Pentagon and Military for their refusal to be used for rather nefarious purposes. And all due to the fact both men refused to be turned into mindless obedient killers—or dead in the process, in mind and spirit if not body. They have refused to used as the “pawns” as stated by Kissinger among many, many others.
Recruitment is down even with the lowered enlistment standards; officers are leaving in bigger numbers as are enlisted ranks’ divorces are soaring as a result of extended and repeated deployments to Iraq; thousands of active duty military have followed in the footsteps of the active duty war-resisters during the war on Vietnam and have left the country; suicides in just the Marine Corps alone since the invasion of Iraq has increased by over 29%, far above not only the national average but the increased overall military average as well.
I have received many emails behind the story about Jerry Texiero saying that while the War on Vietnam may have been wrong, Jerry still volunteered to join and due to that he had an obligation to follow the “rules” and go to Vietnam regardless of what he though or how he felt about the war he was being ordered to go into. My reply to that thinking is simply this—Hogwash!
When we enlist in the military, yes there are rules that must be obeyed and followed. No problem with that. Without that the military would simply fall apart, I realized that (after all, I did spend over 4 years in the Marine Corps myself). However, that all changes when it comes to being sent into a war that up front we know to be wrong, illegal, and by definition a war crime; A War Against the Peace.
When it comes to following orders to kill or be killed, every single human being has the inalienable right to choose whether or not they will be a participant in those killing fields! To tag or label someone as a “criminal” for making the conscience choice not to kill is absurd. Simply “following orders” does not relieve one of the responsibilities of their actions, period. That is all compounded when the war you are being ordered into has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the security or defense of this nation; which is what we all swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend—this nation. No oath was sworn to be of assistance to “Empire Building” period. Not 40 years ago and surely not today.
It was not Jerry Texiero who broke the faith, it was not Jerry Texiero who betrayed his oath; it was not Jerry Texiero who violated any trust; it was not Jerry Texiero who betrayed honor; it was not Jerry Texiero betrayed anything…it was those in command and control of the nation and the military who broke the faith, who broke trust, who betrayed everyone in uniform and the people of this nation as a whole.
It has been said that free speech does not give a person the right to walk into a crowded theater and yell “fire”. My answer to that has always been—but what if there is a fire? The same principle applies to Jerry and his supposed “rule” breaking; what if the rules are wrong?
The following report/essay, “War Resistance, Amnesty and Exile – Just the Facts” by Harold Jordan, explains in great detail the so-called Amnesty programs initiated in the 70’s by Ford and Carter. I strongly urge you to read it carefully and closely. Harold Jordan also goes into the tremendous numbers of people in uniform who opposed the War On Vietnam with up to 550,000 that went AWOL or deserted (those are the Pentagon’s own numbers).
Why does the Marine Corps want to prosecute Jerry Texiero?—what if the same numbers of people in uniform today do what those in uniform did during the War on Vietnam and start putting down their guns in large numbers? Interesting proposition is it not? Now with so many standing in opposition to this new imperialistic misadventure in Iraq, what if those involved in following the “rules” take their lead from Sgt Kevin Benderman or Jerry Texiero and say no, or just put down their gun and just leave?
No, it was not Jerry Texiero who betrayed anything. It is those who have been and are currently turning our Department of Defense into the Department of War; who for decades has been slowly turning this nation’s military into the U.S. Multinational Corporation’s enforcement arm. Or as Henry Kissinger who was quoted in the book, “Kiss the Boys Goodbye” stated, “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”..............Reference:
More info: Tod Ensign, Citizen Soldier (212) 679-2250: citizensoldier1@aol.com
War Resistance, Amnesty and Exile - Just the Factsby Harold Jordanhttp://www.afsc.org/youthmil/conscientious-objection/Vietnam-war-resisters.htm......................
Jack Dalton is a disabled veteran of the American War on Vietnam and writer that lives in Portland, OR. His blog is Jack’s Straight-Speak and his email address is jack_dalton@comcast.net. He is widely published on the internet and was a contributor to the book, “Neo-Conned! Again!”, Published by Light in the Darkness publications, IHS Press.
..................
"Never Again Will One Generation of Veterans Abandon Another" (Vietnam Veterans of America) "If they ask you why we died, tell them 'cause our fathers' lied" (Rudyard Kipling)
By: Jack Dalton
12/29/05
“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” Henry Kissinger as quoted in the book “Kiss the Boys Goodbye"
Just when was it we in this nation lost our ability to choose if and when we would be willing to kill another human being, or be killed ourselves? When was it that following the “rules” became more important than following what is right? Case in point: Jerry Texiero; who as an active duty Marine in 1965 refused to deploy to Vietnam and took off (For details see: Marine Refuser From 40 Years Ago Faces Court Martial). 40 years later the Marine Corps has Jerry incarcerated at the Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Why would the Marine Corps take so much interest in Jerry Texiero and want to court-martial him 40 years later, when we all know for absolute fact the ‘American War On Vietnam’ was contrived, a war crime on a grand scale, and a war in some ways that has never ended? After all, the Agent Orange we “salted” the earth with in Vietnam is still killing large numbers of people there, as well as here with veterans of that mess; thousands have been and still are being killed by all the unexploded ordinance and land mines all over the country, especially in Quang Tri Province.
The Marines want to court-martial Jerry to send a message to the growing number of active duty military, who are becoming resistive to their participation in this new war of choice in Iraq, that if they are unwilling to deploy to Iraq, they will suffer the same fate as Sgt Kevin Benderman, who is doing 15 months at the RCF (or Gulag if you prefer as do I); If they take off, they will be hunted for the rest of their lives, like Jerry Texiero.
The military, the Department of War and the Pentagon are in serious manpower trouble and they need to make examples of people for the purpose of intimidation and coercion—make them afraid to do anything but “follow orders”; to send a loud message to others so they will not follow the example of people of conscience. That’s why Sgt Benderman is in jail, and why the Marine Corps wants to court-martial Jerry Texiero.
Two different men separated by 40 years; two different created wars and both are being “beat up” by an out of control Pentagon and Military for their refusal to be used for rather nefarious purposes. And all due to the fact both men refused to be turned into mindless obedient killers—or dead in the process, in mind and spirit if not body. They have refused to used as the “pawns” as stated by Kissinger among many, many others.
Recruitment is down even with the lowered enlistment standards; officers are leaving in bigger numbers as are enlisted ranks’ divorces are soaring as a result of extended and repeated deployments to Iraq; thousands of active duty military have followed in the footsteps of the active duty war-resisters during the war on Vietnam and have left the country; suicides in just the Marine Corps alone since the invasion of Iraq has increased by over 29%, far above not only the national average but the increased overall military average as well.
I have received many emails behind the story about Jerry Texiero saying that while the War on Vietnam may have been wrong, Jerry still volunteered to join and due to that he had an obligation to follow the “rules” and go to Vietnam regardless of what he though or how he felt about the war he was being ordered to go into. My reply to that thinking is simply this—Hogwash!
When we enlist in the military, yes there are rules that must be obeyed and followed. No problem with that. Without that the military would simply fall apart, I realized that (after all, I did spend over 4 years in the Marine Corps myself). However, that all changes when it comes to being sent into a war that up front we know to be wrong, illegal, and by definition a war crime; A War Against the Peace.
When it comes to following orders to kill or be killed, every single human being has the inalienable right to choose whether or not they will be a participant in those killing fields! To tag or label someone as a “criminal” for making the conscience choice not to kill is absurd. Simply “following orders” does not relieve one of the responsibilities of their actions, period. That is all compounded when the war you are being ordered into has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the security or defense of this nation; which is what we all swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend—this nation. No oath was sworn to be of assistance to “Empire Building” period. Not 40 years ago and surely not today.
It was not Jerry Texiero who broke the faith, it was not Jerry Texiero who betrayed his oath; it was not Jerry Texiero who violated any trust; it was not Jerry Texiero who betrayed honor; it was not Jerry Texiero betrayed anything…it was those in command and control of the nation and the military who broke the faith, who broke trust, who betrayed everyone in uniform and the people of this nation as a whole.
It has been said that free speech does not give a person the right to walk into a crowded theater and yell “fire”. My answer to that has always been—but what if there is a fire? The same principle applies to Jerry and his supposed “rule” breaking; what if the rules are wrong?
The following report/essay, “War Resistance, Amnesty and Exile – Just the Facts” by Harold Jordan, explains in great detail the so-called Amnesty programs initiated in the 70’s by Ford and Carter. I strongly urge you to read it carefully and closely. Harold Jordan also goes into the tremendous numbers of people in uniform who opposed the War On Vietnam with up to 550,000 that went AWOL or deserted (those are the Pentagon’s own numbers).
Why does the Marine Corps want to prosecute Jerry Texiero?—what if the same numbers of people in uniform today do what those in uniform did during the War on Vietnam and start putting down their guns in large numbers? Interesting proposition is it not? Now with so many standing in opposition to this new imperialistic misadventure in Iraq, what if those involved in following the “rules” take their lead from Sgt Kevin Benderman or Jerry Texiero and say no, or just put down their gun and just leave?
No, it was not Jerry Texiero who betrayed anything. It is those who have been and are currently turning our Department of Defense into the Department of War; who for decades has been slowly turning this nation’s military into the U.S. Multinational Corporation’s enforcement arm. Or as Henry Kissinger who was quoted in the book, “Kiss the Boys Goodbye” stated, “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”..............Reference:
More info: Tod Ensign, Citizen Soldier (212) 679-2250: citizensoldier1@aol.com
War Resistance, Amnesty and Exile - Just the Factsby Harold Jordanhttp://www.afsc.org/youthmil/conscientious-objection/Vietnam-war-resisters.htm......................
Jack Dalton is a disabled veteran of the American War on Vietnam and writer that lives in Portland, OR. His blog is Jack’s Straight-Speak and his email address is jack_dalton@comcast.net. He is widely published on the internet and was a contributor to the book, “Neo-Conned! Again!”, Published by Light in the Darkness publications, IHS Press.
..................
"Never Again Will One Generation of Veterans Abandon Another" (Vietnam Veterans of America) "If they ask you why we died, tell them 'cause our fathers' lied" (Rudyard Kipling)
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Another class warrior
Our Entitlement Paralysis
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, December 28, 2005; Page A21
Washington Post
[...]
Until we challenge this moral logic -- the crux of entitlement politics -- public opinion will resist change and our paralysis will continue. The responsibility for this failure is widespread: among liberals, who like massive government programs; among conservatives, who fantasize about "free market" alternatives to Social Security and Medicare; among pundits and "experts," who speak of the "entitlement crisis" in meaningless generalities or incomprehensible technicalities. Our resulting inaction compounds many future dangers of an aging society: higher taxes, slower economic growth, squeezed government spending for non-elderly programs and more conflict between younger taxpayers and older beneficiaries
[...]
Again, another clueless pundit writes about Social Security and Medicare. And again his solution is to cut benefits and raise the retirement age. Not a mention about the SocSec funds being spent to finance the government's deficits over the years. You know, I don't think that anyone who actually works for a living would be calling to raise the retirement age. Try it. Ask the next person you see actually doing physical labor what they think about jacking up the retirement age.
I also see he's too timid or stupid to realize that the bush tax cuts are one of the largest causes of today's deficit, that and the immoral war in Iraq.
Why none of these so-called intelligent people ever think about just raising the limit on payroll contributions to, say, $100,000. Many studies have shown that this alone will go a long way to "fixing" Social Security for the long-term (75 years) future. Oh yeah. I forgot. That would mean a "tax increase". It would actually be an insurance premium increase. And you can ask the residents of Florida and other Gulf Coast states about those.
As for Medicare. The republican solution has already increased costs to that program, with its drug benefit scam. And that's only getting started. But the drug companies are covered quite nicely, thank you.
As for any talk about private accounts and investment. The stock market is only now beginning to approach where it was on Jan 1, 2001. We have a contagion of insider trading (Frist, for one) that steals the resources of the small investor.
So. My opinion. just another shot in the class warfare being waged against the working people of this country. Until the working classes start to vote these assholes out of office, and find candidates who will look out for their concerns, we will continue to lose ground. And as for the clueless asshole pundits, tell them to grab a shovel or hammer for a few years, and then come back, and let us know.
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, December 28, 2005; Page A21
Washington Post
[...]
Until we challenge this moral logic -- the crux of entitlement politics -- public opinion will resist change and our paralysis will continue. The responsibility for this failure is widespread: among liberals, who like massive government programs; among conservatives, who fantasize about "free market" alternatives to Social Security and Medicare; among pundits and "experts," who speak of the "entitlement crisis" in meaningless generalities or incomprehensible technicalities. Our resulting inaction compounds many future dangers of an aging society: higher taxes, slower economic growth, squeezed government spending for non-elderly programs and more conflict between younger taxpayers and older beneficiaries
[...]
Again, another clueless pundit writes about Social Security and Medicare. And again his solution is to cut benefits and raise the retirement age. Not a mention about the SocSec funds being spent to finance the government's deficits over the years. You know, I don't think that anyone who actually works for a living would be calling to raise the retirement age. Try it. Ask the next person you see actually doing physical labor what they think about jacking up the retirement age.
I also see he's too timid or stupid to realize that the bush tax cuts are one of the largest causes of today's deficit, that and the immoral war in Iraq.
Why none of these so-called intelligent people ever think about just raising the limit on payroll contributions to, say, $100,000. Many studies have shown that this alone will go a long way to "fixing" Social Security for the long-term (75 years) future. Oh yeah. I forgot. That would mean a "tax increase". It would actually be an insurance premium increase. And you can ask the residents of Florida and other Gulf Coast states about those.
As for Medicare. The republican solution has already increased costs to that program, with its drug benefit scam. And that's only getting started. But the drug companies are covered quite nicely, thank you.
As for any talk about private accounts and investment. The stock market is only now beginning to approach where it was on Jan 1, 2001. We have a contagion of insider trading (Frist, for one) that steals the resources of the small investor.
So. My opinion. just another shot in the class warfare being waged against the working people of this country. Until the working classes start to vote these assholes out of office, and find candidates who will look out for their concerns, we will continue to lose ground. And as for the clueless asshole pundits, tell them to grab a shovel or hammer for a few years, and then come back, and let us know.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Incident of Intimidation of Military Families
Letter From Military Mom Robin Vaughan:
Domestic Spying & Incident of Intimidation of Military Families
12/23/05
It wasn’t that long ago that the military command in Iraq started pulling computer access to various units. Seems some of the troops were writing emails home to family, to friends, to various anti-war groups and the like, and the military was getting a bit disconcerted by that. After all, can’t have your own troops pretty much turning the “official news” on its head now can you? So what do you do? You shut them up and any way that you can. Let them know they are monitored works pretty good.
But, what about the “moms” back home that are writing on the internet? Moms like Robin Vaughan, whose letter detailing her recent experiences with the Department of Defense and the Army is below.
Moms writing back and forth to “sons and daughters” in Iraq, who might “slip” and tell “mom” what life is really like in Iraq; Can’t have that now, can we? What if the “moms” start telling others what their sons and daughters are telling them (at least the ones that are still able to access a computer). Can’t have that people might turn against the war ON Iraq. I guess we better threaten and intimidate the moms so they’ll keep their mouths shut, stay off the internet and just go home and be a mom. Doesn’t matter to the military these moms only wanted to do what moms do, especially military moms, worry and take advantage of the internet to chat with sons and daughters.
This is pretty much what has happened to Robin Vaughan, the mother of a young man who was in Iraq. We have a DoD and Pentagon (military) that has become the foreign policy ‘setter’, and enforcement arm for the Bush/Cheney cabal--(you know, the guy who said, with a smirk, that he broke the law then pretty much asked, what are you going to do about it?)--that is now attempting to eliminate the rights, the very speech of a group of mothers with sons and daughters in Iraq.
Read Robins letter. Write her. Give her your support—what has been done to her and the other mothers in her group cannot go unanswered! This will only get worse the longer we delay in taking this nation back from the crooks, thugs in whose hands it now is in. Too many Iraqi’s; too many of our own; just too many, period have been killed and maimed already! Now moms are being threatened…what next? (Definitely a rhetorical question)
Robin’s letter came to me thru VAIW (Veterans Against the Iraq War). I have since exchanged a couple of emails with Robin and phone calls, and plan on helping her get this story out—read her letter and join me. –- Jack Dalton........
Letter From A Military "Mom":
Domestic Spying & Incident of Intimidation of Military Families
Written by: Robin Vaughan
I am sending this letter to you in hope of finding a source to hear my concerns. It is something that has bothered me since the occurrence, and I know it is not something that should have happened, and I worry for my family's safety as I step out to speak about this.
During my son's deployment to Iraq, February 2004-February 2005: I created a small group website on MSN, for families and friends of our soldiers’ deployed unit. It was a membership only site, and we were a tight group of mostly "Moms", from all over the United States, just trying to make it through each day. The support and help we gave one another is a singular experience of grace, I will never forget.
During the first few months of our site, the Army decided to call every single family on the site, informing them, that the site was not to be used by any of the families. The Department of Defense called families in the middle of the night to notify them to not use the web site. Most of the families were near tears, thinking they were getting "THE" call telling them their child or loved one had been killed or injured.
The information received via the phone call was to inform the families that the base did not condone the site, nor [did] the Army, and that it was not to be used; the gist was, families were not allowed to use the site, or they could get into "trouble". Some members reported their soldier calling from Iraq, telling them to be careful about using the site as the Army was monitoring it.
As Web Mistress of the site, I needed to respond and qualify this information, as well as to educate this commanding officer as to the rights and liberties of a private web site; which I did. I was told I would have to let a commanding officer on the site to monitor the messages; I did allow this, but I also informed the officer that this was a courtesy, as there is no such law, or right of the military to monitor, shut down or exclude our web site.
I believe we received this order, and treatment for a couple of reasons.
Occasionally we would voice our concerns publicly over what our government was failing to do to help our soldiers, or we would share or argue political opinion as well. The second reason may be: the armed services all have a group of their own family type support (FRG); as we were not local to the base our soldiers deployed from, the site was a means to provide that support, as best as we could.
The support group at our base, tried to force the site to be given over to them, which I refused. At this time I was told, I might want to be careful, as the government was monitoring the site as well. Soldiers in our unit, while in Iraq, were telling their parents to stay off of the site, or to be very careful of what they wrote. This came from a rear detachment officer in charge, and members on the site.
I reminded the Army I am a private citizen, not on base, with a private site making no claims to have any affiliation with any branch of service, but clearly stating we were families and friends of our unit in support of one another. We were treated to power by intimidation. It isn't hard to make that work, when you have someone's child in a war zone.
We were a group of 77 families from all over the country, at the time of the call. Every single family was phoned and told not to use the site; and I believe some 150 other families were phoned as well, as it was an official order from a commanding officer.
I have waited to speak of this situation until my son was home safe and sound, and also after his transfer to another base. Yes, I was afraid of repercussions that could have harmed him, one way or another. I called my local senator's office, 4 months ago, following up every 10 days to 2 weeks, and still have no answers or support.
I admit I am not comfortable writing this, as required to, as I am still concerned for my son and the other soldiers and families involved on the site. We didn't endanger them by means of displaying their photos with their names, giving up information about their location and actions. We were very careful to not breach Intel protocol, learning Ops protocol, as well as respecting and complying with it. We simply were at times, vocal about our displeasure with our president and government for how our military was being treated, or how the presidential election was being handled.
There are literally hundreds of military family, private support groups on the Internet. I truly believe we were singled out because of my refusal to hand the site over to the local F.R.G., as well as [my] outspoken political beliefs.
It's simply amazing that my son and others risk their lives for ”Freedom" in Iraq, when his own mother's civil liberties are threatened, and families are intimidated into silence, by the very same Army he is serving. I am hoping after reading this you may direct me as to where I can at least have this concern heard. Basically, are the following common practice, and legal?
**The Armed services can order families from communicating in a private forum?
**The Armed services can threaten private citizens’ first amendment rights?
I want to make sure this is not happening to other service member's families. We live in a hell everyday during the deployment of our loved ones; we don't need the added bullying or stripping away our means of helping one another.
Any idea or direction you can point me in would be greatly appreciated. Also, this problem can be corroborated by other families if need be.
Why did it take so long for me to step forward?
Originally I contacted my Senator’s office, with no reply for six months, and have also spoken with the A.C.L.U; (with little hope of action due to the length of time that has passed) but until now was not willing to come forward in a public way. It took until September for my son to be safely stationed at another base, and other family's service members to either be out of the service all together, or be transferred as well.
We were afraid for their safety, our own, our relationships with them and their future in the service, all of these things could have been affected, and we couldn’t chance one more problem or pressure being added to the already heavy load the families and soldiers live with. The intimidation worked. Is this just something silly I should let go?
It doesn't seems trivial to me, but I am learning unless it happens to someone personally, no one seems to care.
Thank you, for your time
Robin Vaughan
MomRobin7@msn.com
Domestic Spying & Incident of Intimidation of Military Families
12/23/05
It wasn’t that long ago that the military command in Iraq started pulling computer access to various units. Seems some of the troops were writing emails home to family, to friends, to various anti-war groups and the like, and the military was getting a bit disconcerted by that. After all, can’t have your own troops pretty much turning the “official news” on its head now can you? So what do you do? You shut them up and any way that you can. Let them know they are monitored works pretty good.
But, what about the “moms” back home that are writing on the internet? Moms like Robin Vaughan, whose letter detailing her recent experiences with the Department of Defense and the Army is below.
Moms writing back and forth to “sons and daughters” in Iraq, who might “slip” and tell “mom” what life is really like in Iraq; Can’t have that now, can we? What if the “moms” start telling others what their sons and daughters are telling them (at least the ones that are still able to access a computer). Can’t have that people might turn against the war ON Iraq. I guess we better threaten and intimidate the moms so they’ll keep their mouths shut, stay off the internet and just go home and be a mom. Doesn’t matter to the military these moms only wanted to do what moms do, especially military moms, worry and take advantage of the internet to chat with sons and daughters.
This is pretty much what has happened to Robin Vaughan, the mother of a young man who was in Iraq. We have a DoD and Pentagon (military) that has become the foreign policy ‘setter’, and enforcement arm for the Bush/Cheney cabal--(you know, the guy who said, with a smirk, that he broke the law then pretty much asked, what are you going to do about it?)--that is now attempting to eliminate the rights, the very speech of a group of mothers with sons and daughters in Iraq.
Read Robins letter. Write her. Give her your support—what has been done to her and the other mothers in her group cannot go unanswered! This will only get worse the longer we delay in taking this nation back from the crooks, thugs in whose hands it now is in. Too many Iraqi’s; too many of our own; just too many, period have been killed and maimed already! Now moms are being threatened…what next? (Definitely a rhetorical question)
Robin’s letter came to me thru VAIW (Veterans Against the Iraq War). I have since exchanged a couple of emails with Robin and phone calls, and plan on helping her get this story out—read her letter and join me. –- Jack Dalton........
Letter From A Military "Mom":
Domestic Spying & Incident of Intimidation of Military Families
Written by: Robin Vaughan
I am sending this letter to you in hope of finding a source to hear my concerns. It is something that has bothered me since the occurrence, and I know it is not something that should have happened, and I worry for my family's safety as I step out to speak about this.
During my son's deployment to Iraq, February 2004-February 2005: I created a small group website on MSN, for families and friends of our soldiers’ deployed unit. It was a membership only site, and we were a tight group of mostly "Moms", from all over the United States, just trying to make it through each day. The support and help we gave one another is a singular experience of grace, I will never forget.
During the first few months of our site, the Army decided to call every single family on the site, informing them, that the site was not to be used by any of the families. The Department of Defense called families in the middle of the night to notify them to not use the web site. Most of the families were near tears, thinking they were getting "THE" call telling them their child or loved one had been killed or injured.
The information received via the phone call was to inform the families that the base did not condone the site, nor [did] the Army, and that it was not to be used; the gist was, families were not allowed to use the site, or they could get into "trouble". Some members reported their soldier calling from Iraq, telling them to be careful about using the site as the Army was monitoring it.
As Web Mistress of the site, I needed to respond and qualify this information, as well as to educate this commanding officer as to the rights and liberties of a private web site; which I did. I was told I would have to let a commanding officer on the site to monitor the messages; I did allow this, but I also informed the officer that this was a courtesy, as there is no such law, or right of the military to monitor, shut down or exclude our web site.
I believe we received this order, and treatment for a couple of reasons.
Occasionally we would voice our concerns publicly over what our government was failing to do to help our soldiers, or we would share or argue political opinion as well. The second reason may be: the armed services all have a group of their own family type support (FRG); as we were not local to the base our soldiers deployed from, the site was a means to provide that support, as best as we could.
The support group at our base, tried to force the site to be given over to them, which I refused. At this time I was told, I might want to be careful, as the government was monitoring the site as well. Soldiers in our unit, while in Iraq, were telling their parents to stay off of the site, or to be very careful of what they wrote. This came from a rear detachment officer in charge, and members on the site.
I reminded the Army I am a private citizen, not on base, with a private site making no claims to have any affiliation with any branch of service, but clearly stating we were families and friends of our unit in support of one another. We were treated to power by intimidation. It isn't hard to make that work, when you have someone's child in a war zone.
We were a group of 77 families from all over the country, at the time of the call. Every single family was phoned and told not to use the site; and I believe some 150 other families were phoned as well, as it was an official order from a commanding officer.
I have waited to speak of this situation until my son was home safe and sound, and also after his transfer to another base. Yes, I was afraid of repercussions that could have harmed him, one way or another. I called my local senator's office, 4 months ago, following up every 10 days to 2 weeks, and still have no answers or support.
I admit I am not comfortable writing this, as required to, as I am still concerned for my son and the other soldiers and families involved on the site. We didn't endanger them by means of displaying their photos with their names, giving up information about their location and actions. We were very careful to not breach Intel protocol, learning Ops protocol, as well as respecting and complying with it. We simply were at times, vocal about our displeasure with our president and government for how our military was being treated, or how the presidential election was being handled.
There are literally hundreds of military family, private support groups on the Internet. I truly believe we were singled out because of my refusal to hand the site over to the local F.R.G., as well as [my] outspoken political beliefs.
It's simply amazing that my son and others risk their lives for ”Freedom" in Iraq, when his own mother's civil liberties are threatened, and families are intimidated into silence, by the very same Army he is serving. I am hoping after reading this you may direct me as to where I can at least have this concern heard. Basically, are the following common practice, and legal?
**The Armed services can order families from communicating in a private forum?
**The Armed services can threaten private citizens’ first amendment rights?
I want to make sure this is not happening to other service member's families. We live in a hell everyday during the deployment of our loved ones; we don't need the added bullying or stripping away our means of helping one another.
Any idea or direction you can point me in would be greatly appreciated. Also, this problem can be corroborated by other families if need be.
Why did it take so long for me to step forward?
Originally I contacted my Senator’s office, with no reply for six months, and have also spoken with the A.C.L.U; (with little hope of action due to the length of time that has passed) but until now was not willing to come forward in a public way. It took until September for my son to be safely stationed at another base, and other family's service members to either be out of the service all together, or be transferred as well.
We were afraid for their safety, our own, our relationships with them and their future in the service, all of these things could have been affected, and we couldn’t chance one more problem or pressure being added to the already heavy load the families and soldiers live with. The intimidation worked. Is this just something silly I should let go?
It doesn't seems trivial to me, but I am learning unless it happens to someone personally, no one seems to care.
Thank you, for your time
Robin Vaughan
MomRobin7@msn.com
Sunday, December 18, 2005
What's Changed
Iraq Elections: What's Changed?
Sunday, December 18, 2005
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/12/iraq-elections-whats-changed.html
Peshmerga and Badr Corps interfere with voting.
Dead Men Vote.
United Iraqi Alliance claims victory.
Baghdad Burning wrote some while back that many secular voters might back Iyad Allawi's list, despite his backing the atrocities in Fallujah, because "He who sees death, is content with a fever." I doubt the vote for Allawi will be very much more significant than it was in January. The LA Times indicates that Allawi has not done very well at all.
One thing that has changed however is the alignment within the Shi'ite voting bloc. It appears that the Sadrists did better than any other partner in the UIA coalition, and that the SCIRI did rather badly. (See Cole's caveats on this). Also, of course, the Sunni Arab voters who had largely boycotted the vote last time round voted in very large numbers this time. Adnan al-Dulaimi of the National Concord Front, an Islamist group, thanked the resistance for protecting voting booths, as they had during the constitutional referendum. He also indicated his willingness to join in a coalition with Shi'ites, Kurds, or indeed anyone who will reject "communal dispensations". The other major winner from the elections is Salih Mutlak, a secular Arab nationalist who has been doing the rounds on television denouncing the occupation.
There is an awful lot of talk, and rather too much of it, from Bush and his apologists to indicate that the US thinks the vote will now start to swing things its way. Sunnis (and, one might add, Sadrists) embracing 'the democratic process' is allegedly going to staunch the flow of violence, isolate the evildoers and allow the US to begin withdrawing troops. We've got to hear the last of this stupidity soon. The US resisted having any kind of elections to begin with, only ceding them when the SCIRI threatened to join the armed insurrection. Now that there have been elections, the US candidate has been creamed twice. The only question for the US is just how adamantly against the occupation the government is likely to be, how easily it can be bought off, how much they can temporise, how quickly their vast bases can be built and protected. For this much is transparent: the US has no intention of withdrawing. It may well wish to make some reduction in the open presence of troops in Iraqi towns and cities, diminish the exposure of soldiers to enemy fire and generally retreat to its bases. There may be some draw down in the numbers come March 2006. But then again, perhaps not. Either way, this will not be the beginning of the end of US troops in Iraq.
Nor, to tarry with the negative, do these elections signify the end of the resistance, armed or unarmed. There has been a clear shift in tactics by the resistance, which started well before the elections. I don't know whether suicide bombings will end as such - initially, much of this aspect of the resistance was driven by advice from Hamas, not by the Salafis. But there is a dual politico-military approach emerging. The new strategy is, as Juan Cole points out, much more like Irish Republicanism's bullet and the ballot box strategy than a farewell to arms. It is reported, in fact, that the nationalist resistance is about to "announce a Front for the Iraqi Resistance", to be led by a Consultative Council with the aim of ending attacks on civilians and expelling the occupiers. The Iraqi National Foundation Congress is, I am told, moving to fulfill its name and become a political front for all anti-occupation forces. The occupiers really aren't entitled to their unworldly confidence.
In other election news: The Democrats will not take a position on Iraq in 2006. The major opposition party not taking a stance on the most important foreign policy decision taken by the incumbent government - I don't think there is a word for just how gutless, venal and pathetic this is.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/12/iraq-elections-whats-changed.html
Peshmerga and Badr Corps interfere with voting.
Dead Men Vote.
United Iraqi Alliance claims victory.
Baghdad Burning wrote some while back that many secular voters might back Iyad Allawi's list, despite his backing the atrocities in Fallujah, because "He who sees death, is content with a fever." I doubt the vote for Allawi will be very much more significant than it was in January. The LA Times indicates that Allawi has not done very well at all.
One thing that has changed however is the alignment within the Shi'ite voting bloc. It appears that the Sadrists did better than any other partner in the UIA coalition, and that the SCIRI did rather badly. (See Cole's caveats on this). Also, of course, the Sunni Arab voters who had largely boycotted the vote last time round voted in very large numbers this time. Adnan al-Dulaimi of the National Concord Front, an Islamist group, thanked the resistance for protecting voting booths, as they had during the constitutional referendum. He also indicated his willingness to join in a coalition with Shi'ites, Kurds, or indeed anyone who will reject "communal dispensations". The other major winner from the elections is Salih Mutlak, a secular Arab nationalist who has been doing the rounds on television denouncing the occupation.
There is an awful lot of talk, and rather too much of it, from Bush and his apologists to indicate that the US thinks the vote will now start to swing things its way. Sunnis (and, one might add, Sadrists) embracing 'the democratic process' is allegedly going to staunch the flow of violence, isolate the evildoers and allow the US to begin withdrawing troops. We've got to hear the last of this stupidity soon. The US resisted having any kind of elections to begin with, only ceding them when the SCIRI threatened to join the armed insurrection. Now that there have been elections, the US candidate has been creamed twice. The only question for the US is just how adamantly against the occupation the government is likely to be, how easily it can be bought off, how much they can temporise, how quickly their vast bases can be built and protected. For this much is transparent: the US has no intention of withdrawing. It may well wish to make some reduction in the open presence of troops in Iraqi towns and cities, diminish the exposure of soldiers to enemy fire and generally retreat to its bases. There may be some draw down in the numbers come March 2006. But then again, perhaps not. Either way, this will not be the beginning of the end of US troops in Iraq.
Nor, to tarry with the negative, do these elections signify the end of the resistance, armed or unarmed. There has been a clear shift in tactics by the resistance, which started well before the elections. I don't know whether suicide bombings will end as such - initially, much of this aspect of the resistance was driven by advice from Hamas, not by the Salafis. But there is a dual politico-military approach emerging. The new strategy is, as Juan Cole points out, much more like Irish Republicanism's bullet and the ballot box strategy than a farewell to arms. It is reported, in fact, that the nationalist resistance is about to "announce a Front for the Iraqi Resistance", to be led by a Consultative Council with the aim of ending attacks on civilians and expelling the occupiers. The Iraqi National Foundation Congress is, I am told, moving to fulfill its name and become a political front for all anti-occupation forces. The occupiers really aren't entitled to their unworldly confidence.
In other election news: The Democrats will not take a position on Iraq in 2006. The major opposition party not taking a stance on the most important foreign policy decision taken by the incumbent government - I don't think there is a word for just how gutless, venal and pathetic this is.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
November In Iraq
November In Iraq
http://www.peacetakescourage.com/november.html
It’s Easier To Lie
http://www.peacetakescourage.com/easiertolie.html
Peace Takes Courage
thanks to Eric Blumrich at Bushflash.com
I was watching a video of my grandaughter toddling around the backyard. So cute. What am I going to tell her about this time of America? This is her century, hers and my grandson’s. And it is certainly not starting off real well.
There is no other way to put it. We have allowed a corrupt and venal administration to rob her future. Not something to be proud of.
And we have allowed this same administration destroy another country and people. And the American people, and the American media, and the American congress cheered on this obscenity. And still are. Sometimes the rage and sadness overcome me. The loss and waste caused by little georgie peorgie’s war is heartbreaking. And they send the dead home as freight.
The Iraq people are not going to forget what we did to them. The wanton use of DU munitions poisoning their environment for centuries made sure of that. Still proud? And the bush is seeking a compromise on language prohibiting torture, for christ’s sake. Happy holidays, indeed.
http://www.peacetakescourage.com/november.html
It’s Easier To Lie
http://www.peacetakescourage.com/easiertolie.html
Peace Takes Courage
thanks to Eric Blumrich at Bushflash.com
I was watching a video of my grandaughter toddling around the backyard. So cute. What am I going to tell her about this time of America? This is her century, hers and my grandson’s. And it is certainly not starting off real well.
There is no other way to put it. We have allowed a corrupt and venal administration to rob her future. Not something to be proud of.
And we have allowed this same administration destroy another country and people. And the American people, and the American media, and the American congress cheered on this obscenity. And still are. Sometimes the rage and sadness overcome me. The loss and waste caused by little georgie peorgie’s war is heartbreaking. And they send the dead home as freight.
The Iraq people are not going to forget what we did to them. The wanton use of DU munitions poisoning their environment for centuries made sure of that. Still proud? And the bush is seeking a compromise on language prohibiting torture, for christ’s sake. Happy holidays, indeed.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
December 12, 2000
That’s the day little georgie got the nod from the supreme court. And quite the criminal enterprise he’s got going for him now.
You can read None Dare Call It Treason by Vincent Bugliosi for more.
You can read None Dare Call It Treason by Vincent Bugliosi for more.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Happy Holidays
Rice defends unlimited detention of suspected terrorists
(AFP)
29 November 2005
Khaleej Times Online
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2005/November/theworld_November769.xml§ion=theworld&col=
WASHINGTON - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the unlimited detention of suspected terrorists saying, ...
“You can’t allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them...
Rice defends detainee tactics before trip to Europe
By Saul Hudson
12/5/05
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051205/ts_nm/europe_rice_dc
ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, Maryland (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday defended U.S. treatment of terrorism suspects, telling European allies they should trust Washington and cooperate to prevent new attacks...
Bush seeking compromise on CIA torture ban -aide
04 Dec 2005 18:21:22 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Mohammad Zargham
WASHINGTON, Dec 4 (Reuters) - The White House is seeking a compromise with a leading Senate Republican over its efforts to exempt the CIA from a proposed ban on torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners, President George W. Bush's national security adviser said on Sunday...
If It Can Happen to Padilla, It Can Happen to You
by Cenk Uygur
11.22.2005
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-it-can-happen-to-padil_b_11075.html
Jose Padilla is a United States citizen. He was arrested over three years ago and he was finally indicted today. In the meantime, the government kept him in a Navy brig in South Carolina. They stripped him of all of his constitutional rights. No speedy trial, no access to a lawyer, no evidence presented against him, not even any formal charges.
They said they could strip him of his rights as a citizen because the President had labeled him an "enemy combatant."
Jose Padilla is a United States citizen. For three years, Padilla could not challenge why he was being held or even know what he was being held for. He could not take his case to court. He did not even know what his case was...
***
It's not going to be long before we start seeing large numbers of "the disappeared" in this country if we don't start taking steps to reclaim our country from the fascist corporatistas and the corrupt bushistas.
The laws and precedent allowing this to happen are on the books, passed by a craven congress and signed by an equally craven president.
While the bloggers and internet commentators were reporting this extreme loss of our Bill of Rights, the situation was ignored by the US media. Ignored. While this and countless other stories important to our country and our well-being were unfolding, we got untold hours, and untold hours of ink, about M. Jackson, the Luci Peterson case, some missing white girl in Aruba.
***
The Grave Threat of the Bush Administration
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
November 28, 2005
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11282005.html
[...]
Americans need to understand that a police state has to produce results in order to justify its budget and its powers. It doesn't really care who it catches. Stalin's police state caught the wife of Stalin's foreign minister in one of its street sweeps.
The Bush administration justifies torture and threatens to veto congressional attempts to restrain its use. The Bush administration justifies indefinite detention of American citizens without charges.
It asserts the power of indefinite detention based on its subjective judgment about who is a threat. An American government that preaches "freedom and democracy" to the world claims the powers of tyrants as its own.
Americans need to wake up. The only danger to Americans in Iraq is the one Bush created by invading the country. The grave threat that Americans face is the Bush administration's police state mentality.
[...]
***
A note to Bill O'Reilly. That's some pretty lame-ass enemies list you published at your site. But then, you're pretty lame-ass yourself.
Well, anyhow, I'd like to wish you all a happy, and healthy, Holiday Season.
(AFP)
29 November 2005
Khaleej Times Online
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2005/November/theworld_November769.xml§ion=theworld&col=
WASHINGTON - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the unlimited detention of suspected terrorists saying, ...
“You can’t allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them...
Rice defends detainee tactics before trip to Europe
By Saul Hudson
12/5/05
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051205/ts_nm/europe_rice_dc
ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, Maryland (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday defended U.S. treatment of terrorism suspects, telling European allies they should trust Washington and cooperate to prevent new attacks...
Bush seeking compromise on CIA torture ban -aide
04 Dec 2005 18:21:22 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Mohammad Zargham
WASHINGTON, Dec 4 (Reuters) - The White House is seeking a compromise with a leading Senate Republican over its efforts to exempt the CIA from a proposed ban on torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners, President George W. Bush's national security adviser said on Sunday...
If It Can Happen to Padilla, It Can Happen to You
by Cenk Uygur
11.22.2005
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-it-can-happen-to-padil_b_11075.html
Jose Padilla is a United States citizen. He was arrested over three years ago and he was finally indicted today. In the meantime, the government kept him in a Navy brig in South Carolina. They stripped him of all of his constitutional rights. No speedy trial, no access to a lawyer, no evidence presented against him, not even any formal charges.
They said they could strip him of his rights as a citizen because the President had labeled him an "enemy combatant."
Jose Padilla is a United States citizen. For three years, Padilla could not challenge why he was being held or even know what he was being held for. He could not take his case to court. He did not even know what his case was...
***
It's not going to be long before we start seeing large numbers of "the disappeared" in this country if we don't start taking steps to reclaim our country from the fascist corporatistas and the corrupt bushistas.
The laws and precedent allowing this to happen are on the books, passed by a craven congress and signed by an equally craven president.
While the bloggers and internet commentators were reporting this extreme loss of our Bill of Rights, the situation was ignored by the US media. Ignored. While this and countless other stories important to our country and our well-being were unfolding, we got untold hours, and untold hours of ink, about M. Jackson, the Luci Peterson case, some missing white girl in Aruba.
***
The Grave Threat of the Bush Administration
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
November 28, 2005
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11282005.html
[...]
Americans need to understand that a police state has to produce results in order to justify its budget and its powers. It doesn't really care who it catches. Stalin's police state caught the wife of Stalin's foreign minister in one of its street sweeps.
The Bush administration justifies torture and threatens to veto congressional attempts to restrain its use. The Bush administration justifies indefinite detention of American citizens without charges.
It asserts the power of indefinite detention based on its subjective judgment about who is a threat. An American government that preaches "freedom and democracy" to the world claims the powers of tyrants as its own.
Americans need to wake up. The only danger to Americans in Iraq is the one Bush created by invading the country. The grave threat that Americans face is the Bush administration's police state mentality.
[...]
***
A note to Bill O'Reilly. That's some pretty lame-ass enemies list you published at your site. But then, you're pretty lame-ass yourself.
Well, anyhow, I'd like to wish you all a happy, and healthy, Holiday Season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)