:: Da' Militant One's Lair ::

:: Monday, December 29, 2003 ::

Excerpt from an article listing total casaulties in Iraq

The total number of wounded soldiers and medical evacuations from the war in Iraq is nearing 11,000,
according to new Pentagon data provided in response to a request from UPI.

The military has made 8,581 medical evacuations from Operation Iraqi Freedom for non-hostile causes
in addition to the 2,273 wounded -- a total of 10,854, according to the new data. The Pentagon says that 457 troops have died.

The Pentagon's casualty update for Operation Iraqi Freedom listed on its Web site, however,
does not reflect thousands of the evacuations.

It is a toll the country has not seen since Vietnam

:: DM1 12/29/2003 05:22:00 PM [+] ::
...

Who Said It?

"So many minority youths had volunteered that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself."

Sounds like very cowardly and ridiculous statement doesn't it? Should someone who makes a statement like that be trusted to do the right thing. To be honest and above board? The answer is "No". Who is this coward and racialist? Why it's none other than "Mister Coward" himself: House Majority Leader Tom Delay! How's that for moral and christian values, Republicans?

:: DM1 12/26/2003 12:14:00 PM [+] ::
...

"Latest U.S. Casualty Count"

Killed: 464
Wounded in Combat: 2,657

Total Casualties: 3,121


Just remember that these figures do not include soldiers hospitalized for illness, mental disorders, and non-combat injuries. These numbers total in the thousands, also.

:: DM1 12/24/2003 03:34:00 AM [+] ::
...

"You Can't Handle The Truth"

Word is that Condi Rice does not want to be placed under oath if she is called to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission" I repeat, it is alleged that Condi Rice does not want to swear to tell the truth under oath. Remember that right after 9/11, she suggested that no one could have predicted that terrorists would hijack planes and crash them into buildings. Intelligence data that was readily available to her indicated other wise. In fact, there was many years of data that showed terrorists might try to hijack planes for various purposes. There were many who hounded Bill Clinton for many years for lying about the Monica Affair. Evidence exists that directly contradicts statements mde by National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice on behalf of George Bush. Should she and Bush get a break because neither one was under oath when Rice made her statements? If Rice has to testify under oath at the 9/11 Commission will she have to admit that her previous statements to the American public were lies? Also, the Commission may ask Bush, Cheney, Clinton, and Gore to testify at the hearing. The catch is that none of the four will be placed under oath. Shouldn't these supposed "servants of the America People" be required to tell the absolute truth about what they knew prior to 9/11? Ah, "You Can't Handle The Truth!"

:: DM1 12/24/2003 03:15:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Rule of Law and Rush Limbaugh


There is nothing more disgusting than to hear a blowhard scream about the rule of law for eight years when his ox is not being gored. Now that It's Limbaugh's feet instead of Bill Clinton's being held to the fire, Limbaugh is whining and suggesting that he is a "victim" of the government's heavy boot. This ass has been railing against the victimization mentality of mostly blacks and gays. Now that he has been caught engaging in illegal drug activity, Limbaugh wants to change the rules. He says that Bill Clinton didn't have to disclose his medical records so why should he? Now isn't it ironic that this windbag is now trying to use Clinton as part of his defense? Hey, Limbaugh about that rule of law, did you purchase prescription drugs illegally. You know the truth and a court of law is not required. Why don't you "tell the truth"? Why don't you require of yourself that which you required of Bill Clinton. Just tell the truth. The only positive thing out of this is that you have been exposed as a liar and a criminal who is most likely guilty of many felonies in connection with your illegal drug use. What a phony. I hope that you are given a full dose of the "rule of law". You certainly deserve it!

:: DM1 12/23/2003 01:13:00 PM [+] ::
...

More on the Capture of Saddam

Article detailing the capture? of Sadam By Foreign Editor David Pratt:



Saddam’s capture was the best present George Bush could have hoped for, and then Gaddafi handed a propaganda gift to Blair. But nothing’s ever that simple




It was exactly one week ago at 3.15pm Baghdad time, when a beaming Paul Bremer made that now-famous announce ment: “Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!”
Saddam Hussein: High Value Target Number One. The Glorious Leader. The Lion of Babylon had been snared. Iraq’s most wanted – the ace of spades – had become little more than an ace in the hole.

In Baghdad’s streets, Kalashnikov bullets rained down in celebration. In the billets of US soldiers, there were high fives, toasts and cigars. In the Jordanian capital Amman, an elderly woman overcome by grief broke down in tears and died. Inside a snow-blanketed White House, George W Bush prepared to address the nation.

“There’s an end to everything,” said a sombre Safa Saber al-Douri, a former Iraqi air force pilot, now a grocer in al-Dwar, the town where only hours earlier one of the greatest manhunts in history had ended under a polystyrene hatch in a six foot deep “spider hole.”

But just how did that endgame come about? Indeed, who exactly were the key players in what until then had been a frustrating and sometimes embarrassing hunt for a former dictator with a $25 million (£14m) bounty on his head?

For 249 days there was no shortage of US expertise devoted to the hunt. But the Pentagon has always remained tight-lipped about those individuals and groups involved, such as Task Force 20, said to be America’s most elite covert unit, or another super-secret team known as Greyfox, which specialises in radio and telephone surveillance.

Saddam, of course, was never likely to use the phone, and the best chance of locating him would always be as a result of informers or home-grown Iraqi intelligence. On this and their collaboration with anti-Saddam groups the Americans have also remained reticent.

Enter one Qusrat Rasul Ali, otherwise known as the lion of Kurdistan. A leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Rasul Ali was once tortured by Saddam’s henchmen, but today is chief of a special forces unit dedicated to hunting down former Ba’athist regime leaders.

Rasul Ali’s unit had an impressive track record. It was they who last August, working alone, arrested Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan in Mosul, northern Iraq. Barely a month earlier in the al-Falah district of the same town, the PUK is believed to have played a crucial role in the pinpointing and storming of a villa that culminated in the deaths of Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay.

In that mixed district of Mosul where Arabs, Kurds and Turkemen live side by side, PUK informers went running to their leader Jalal Talabani’s nearest military headquarters to bring him news on the exact location of the villa where both Uday and Qusay had taken shelter.

Armed with the information, Talabani made a beeline for US administration offices in Baghdad, where deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz was based for a week’s stay in Iraq at the time.

The Kurdish leader and US military chiefs conferred and decided that PUK intelligence would go ahead and secretly surround the Zeidan villa and install sensors and eavesdropping devices. The Kurdish agents were instructed to prepare the site for the US special forces operation to storm the building on July 22.

American officials later said they expected that the $30m bounty promised by their government for the capture or death of the Hussein sons would be paid. Given their direct involvement in providing the exact location and intelligence necessary, no doubt Talabani’s PUK operatives could lay claim to the sum, but no confirmation of any delivery or receipt of the cash has ever been made.

The PUK and Rasul Ali’s special “Ba’athist hunters” have, it seems, been doing what the Americans have consistently failed to do. In an interview with the PUK’s al-Hurriyah radio station last Wednesday, Adil Murad, a member of the PUK’s political bureau, confirmed that the Kurdish unit had been pursuing fugitive Ba’athists for the past months in Mosul, Samarra, Tikrit and areas to the south including al-Dwar where Saddam was eventually cornered. Murad even says that the day before Saddam’s capture he was tipped off by PUK General Thamir al-Sultan, that Saddam would be arrested within the next 72 hours.

Clearly the Kurdish net was closing on Saddam, and PUK head Jalal Talabani and Rasul Ali were once again in the running for US bounty – should any be going.

It was at about 10.50am Baghdad time on last Saturday when US intel ligence says it got the tip it was looking for. But it was not until 8pm, with the launch of Operation Red Dawn, that they finally began to close in on the prize.

The US media reported that the tip-off came from an Iraqi man who was arrested during a raid in Tikrit, and even speculated that he could get part of the bounty. “It was intelligence, actionable intelligence,” claimed Lt General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq. “It was great analytical work.”

But the widely held view that Kurdish intelligence was the key to the operation was supported in a statement released last Sunday by the Iraqi Governing Council. Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said that Rasul Ali and his PUK special forces unit had provided vital information and more.




Last Saturday, as the US operation picked up speed, the Fourth Infantry Division moved into the area surrounding two farms codenamed Wolverine 1 and Wolverine 2 near al-Dwar, the heart of the Saddam heartland – a military town where practically every man is a military officer past or present. It is said to have a special place in Saddam’s sentiments because it was from here that he swam across the Tigris River when he was a dissident fleeing arrest in the 1960s.

Every year on August 28, the town marks Saddam’s escape with a swimming contest . In 1992, Saddam himself attended the race. It was won by a man called Qais al-Nameq. It was al-Nameq’s farmhouse – Wolverine 2 – that about 600 troops, including engineers, artillery and special forces, surrounded, cutting off all roads for about four or five miles around.

Next to a sheep pen was a ramshackle orange and white taxi, which US officials say was probably used to ferry Saddam around while he was on the run, sometimes moving every three or four hours.

Inside the premises was a walled compound with a mud hut and small lean-to. There US soldiers found the camouflaged hole in which Saddam was hiding.

It was 3.15pm Washington time when Donald Rumsfeld called George W Bush at Camp David. “Mr President, first reports are not always accurate,” he began. “But we think we may have him.”

First reports – indeed the very first report of Saddam’s capture – were also coming out elsewhere. Jalal Talabani chose to leak the news and details of Rasul Ali’s role in the deployment to the Iranian media and to be interviewed by them.

By early Sunday – way before Saddam’s capture was being reported by the mainstream Western press – the Kurdish media ran the following news wire:

“Saddam Hussein, the former President of the Iraqi regime, was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. Qusrat’s team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!”

By the time Western press agencies were running the same story, the emphasis had changed, and the ousted Iraqi president had been “captured in a raid by US forces backed by Kurdish fighters.”

Rasul Ali himself, meanwhile, had already been on air at the Iranian satellite station al-Alam insisting that his “PUK fighters sealed the area off before the arrival of the US forces”.

By late Sunday as the story went global, the Kurdish role was reduced to a supportive one in what was described by the Pentagon and US military officials as a “joint operation”. The Americans now somewhat reluctantly were admitting that PUK fighters were on the ground alongside them , while PUK sources were making more considered statements and playing down their precise role.

So just who did get to Saddam first, the Kurds or the Americans? And if indeed it was a joint operation would it have been possible at all without the intelligence and on-the-ground participation of Rasul Ali and his special forces?

If the PUK themselves pulled off Saddam’s capture, there would be much to gain from taking the $25m bounty and any political guarantees the Americans might reward them with to keep schtum. What’s more, Jalal Talabani’s links to Tehran have always worried Washington, and having his party grab the grand prize from beneath their noses would be awkward to say the least.

“It’s mutually worth it to us and the Americans. We need assurances for the future and they need the kudos of getting Saddam,” admitted a Kurdish source on condition of anonymity. It would be all to easy to dismiss the questions surrounding the PUK role as conspiracy theory. After all, almost every major event that affects the Arab world prompts tales that are quickly woven into intricate shapes and patterns, to demonstrate innocence, seek credit or apportion blame. Saddam’s capture is no exception.

Of the numerous and more exotic theories surrounding events leading to Saddam’s arrest, one originates on a website many believe edited by former Israeli intelligence agents, but which often turns up inside information about the Middle East that proves to be accurate.

According to Debka.com, there is a possibility that Saddam was held for up to three weeks in al-Dwar by a Kurdish splinter group while they negotiated a handover to the Americans in return for the $25m reward. This, the writers say would explain his dishevelled and disorientated appearance.

But perhaps the mother of all conspiracy theories, is the one about the pictures distributed by the Americans showing the hideout with a palm tree behind the soldier who uncov ered the hole where Saddam was hiding. The palm carried a cluster of pre-ripened yellow dates, which might suggest that Saddam was arrested at least three months earlier, because dates ripen in the summer when they turn into their black or brown colour.

Those who buy into such an explanation conclude that Saddam’s capture was stage-managed and his place of arrest probably elsewhere. All fanciful stuff. But as is so often the case, the real chain of events is likely to be far more mundane.

In the end serious questions remain about the Kurdish role and whether at last Sunday’s Baghdad press conference, Paul Bremer was telling the whole truth . Or is it a case of “ladies and gentlemen we got him,” – with a little more help from our Kurdish friends than might be politically expedient to admit?

:: DM1 12/21/2003 02:14:00 PM [+] ::
...

Was Saddam Capture a Photo Op?

Some foreign newspapers are reporting that Saddam was captured by the Kurds prior to being turned over to the U.S. Ridiculous you say? In early December Representative Ray La Hood a republican, responded to a question by a reporter regarding the potential capture of saddam by saying that he was very confident that Saddam would be apprehended shortly. the reporter asked La Hood why he thought that. La Hood was coy in his response and didn't answer. What did La Hood know? Here is the article from Pantagraph.Com


Tuesday, December 2, 2003
LaHood: Hussein's capture imminent

Pantagraph Staff

BLOOMINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood held his thumb and forefinger slightly apart and said, "We're this close" to catching Saddam Hussein.
Once that's accomplished, Iraqi resistance will fall apart, said the five-term Republican congressman from Peoria who serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

A member of The Pantagraph editorial board -- not really expecting an answer -- asked LaHood for more details, saying, "Do you know something we don't?"

"Yes I do," replied LaHood.

LaHood spent an hour at the newspaper Monday, discussing the war on terror, the 2004 elections, Central Illinois' regional economic development and his less-than-enthusiastic appraisal of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's performance.

The comment about the deposed Iraqi president came while LaHood discussed next year's elections.

The congressman said he's been disappointed with U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald and believes the Republican senator isn't seeking a second term because "he can't get the votes."

LaHood hopes his party can hold the Senate seat because, he said, "President Bush is popular south of I-80, and that will help our Republican Senate candidate."

The economy -- barring a cataclysmic event like the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- will be central to the presidential race, he said.

"People working, making money, taking care of their families, health-care costs" -- those are the key issues, LaHood said.

He said the war is a major issue, but not as important as the economy.

LaHood said polls still show most Americans support the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Then he added, "Once we get Saddam ... and we're this close."

He said members of Congress who return from trips to the war zone all say the Iraqi people are very thankful to the United States and added, "You don't hear about that too often."

:: DM1 12/21/2003 02:00:00 PM [+] ::
...

Safer?

Howard Dean was crucified by the Bush Adminstration, the pundits, and some of the democratic presidential candidates. Dean had the nerve to suggest that the capture of Saddam did not make America safer. Well today the terror level threat is being raised to "Orange", or "High". It appears that the Bush Administration may have validated Dean's assessment. If not then Bush should explain that if capturing Saddam made us safer then why only a week after his capture is the terror threat being elevated. Could it be that we should have been spending these last two years focusing on the real mastermind behind 9/11? Could it be that Osama was, is, and will be our biggest threat until to apprehend him? The answer of course is yes. Christmas is only days away, let's hope that our use of force thus far has been properly focused.

:: DM1 12/21/2003 01:52:00 PM [+] ::
...

Of War and Money

The "probable" next President of the United States is ... George W. Bush. He doesn't have Osama, but he has Saddam. He doesn't have an 11,000 stock market, but he has a 10,000 stock market. So what if he told a bunch of lies. Who is going to call him on them? Obviously, Bush is truly a "teflon-coated" president. Where are you now Howard Dean? Will you stick to your guns? Will you challenge Bush and his versions of the truth? Stay tuned sports fans!

:: DM1 12/17/2003 06:09:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: DM1 11/28/2003 03:48:00 PM [+] ::
...

Alright Sports Fans, I'm back. Every now and then I have to take a break because it gets hectic trying to point out all of the lies, distortions, and deviations of the Bush administration. So many inconsistencies so little time. Bush just flew to Iraq and the Bush cabal, pundits, Faux News, and the rest are telling us how wonderful and brave he is. To my recollection, the Iraqis don't have an air force so I don't think that Bush had to worry about a dogfight. Also, I am sure that there was a very large complement of jet fighters, AWACs, helicopter gunships, and soldiers on the ground to prevent any attempt to shoot down Air Force One. So as quiet as it's kept Bush did do the right thing, but he was not parachuting in to hostile territory only armed with a K-bar (a military knife). To lionize someone for doing want they ought to do is not only ridiculous, but this way of thinking continues to lower the bar as to what is truly extraordinary and exemplary.

The fact that Bush's visit was kept in the strictest secrecy belies a crucial point that he and his minions constantly make: That while Iraq does have some security problems, things are going reasonably well. If Bush has to fly into Baghdad International Airport in complete secrecy doesn't that suggest that some serious issues involving security remain. Not small pockets of resistance mind you, but a committed band of guerrillas bent on killing as many American soldiers as possible, or die trying. It's just that simple. Now the question is what are we prepared to do?

:: DM1 11/28/2003 03:46:00 PM [+] ::
...

Except from today's column by Tim Harper of the Toronto Star:

Lynn Cutler, a Democratic strategist and former official in Bill Clinton's White House, says this is the first time in history that bodies have been brought home under cover of secrecy.

"It feels like Vietnam when Lyndon Johnson was accused of hiding the body bags ....

"This is a big government and a big Pentagon and they could have someone there to meet these bodies as they come back to the country."

But today's military doesn't even use the words "body bags" — a term in common usage during the Vietnam War, when 58,000 Americans died.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon began calling them "human remains pouches" and it now refers to them as "transfer tubes."

Transfer tubes? That's how we dignify are dead soldiers? Transfer tubes? Are the dead soldiers just material to be removed when no longer functional? Where are the honorable funerals of our brave dead soldiers? Don't we at least owe it to them to acknowledge their sacifices publicly? Who were they fighting for? They were fighting for us. George Bush has not attended a single funeral according to the "Bush Watchers". Not one personal tribute from a man who has sent them to their deaths. If they were good enough for Bush on the aircraft carrier "alive" , then surely he can stop his fund raising of tens of millions of dollars and pay proper tribute to at least one of our dead soldiers. For all of Bill Clinton's faults (I'm sure that you conservative republicans can name them all and then some), he attended public funerals of our dead soldiers. Even the lying, draft dodging, womanizer had the decency, perspective, and courage to show his face and pay tribute to the young soldiers that he sent to their deaths. That is leadership and that is what George Bush is sorely lacking.

:: DM1 11/03/2003 06:10:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Faux News Network

Good News from Iraq today. The Iraqis have more electricity and more schools are open. Oh yeah, a chinook helicopter was shot down today killing 13 U.S. soldiers and wounding 20. Iraqis are going back to work and experiencing democracy. Oh yeah, the number of U.S. killed is approaching 400 and total casualties are close to 2,500. More Iraqi policemen are on the street and the Iraqi army is being retrained. Oh, yeah, none of the people who are keeping the troops in harm's way in Iraq have family members in harm's way. I've got a nephew in the Marines stationed in Okinawa and another in the Air Force in Germany. Is it too much to ask that the people responsible for keeping our troops in harm's way contribute the blood of their families. I did my time in the Army for four years and am sick of the B.S. shoved down our throats daily. Bill Clinton is termed a reprobate because he wouldn't come clean on oral sex. George Bush is getting our young people killed, maimed, and wounded for a failed "nation-building" strategy. The Faux News Network has some explaining to do. FNN and it's minions had day after day of critical analysis and stories involving Bill Clinton and his penis, however, for this failed Bush administration they cover up , blame others, and hail Bush. What utter frauds. Personal responsibility and accountability well that's only reserved for democrats, black criminals, welfare mothers, arab terrorists, and illegal immigrants. When are white conservatives going to hold Bush and his crowd to the same standards?

:: DM1 11/02/2003 06:32:00 AM [+] ::
...

Modern White Racism

It's no longer fashionable to wear white sheets in public, but that doesn't stop the true believers like Haley Barbour the republican candidate for Governor of Mississippi.

:: DM1 10/31/2003 07:53:00 PM [+] ::
...

Another Blast From The Past

[10/16/2002 7:35:59 PM | Jamie Starr]
Ten Questions for the Chichkenhawks:

If Saddam is such an immediate threat answer the following questions:

1. Why did Bush take a 30-day vacation in August?
2. Why is not the threat assessment at RED, the highest alert?
3. Why now a month before the mid-term elections and not earlier in the year?
4. How many casualities are acceptable?
5. What are the costs?
6. What is the time frame?
7. How long the occupation?
8. What if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel strikes back with nuclear weapons?
9. What happens if Syria helps Iraq?
10. What happens if the democrats take Congress?

:: DM1 10/28/2003 10:43:00 PM [+] ::
...

A Blast From The Past

[10/16/2002 7:34:32 PM | Jamie Starr]
Memo to Dick Gephardt:

Dear Congressman Gephardt,

I am very disappointed in your actions the other day in giving the appointed president another photo-op. I am a republican and I am amazed that you still don't get it. The current administration cares nothing about you or your position. It only cares that you have "cut" Senator Daschle off at the knees and will now use you to further republican goals. I do not like the direction that this country is taking. I, too, served my country in the Army for four years and as veterans both you and I have a duty to protect this country from foreign enemies and domestic incompetence. You have failed many in your party and many others who are looking for men of courage to stand up against an administration that is bent on war at any cost. I understand that you have visions of running for president in 2004. Well, to win you need to show true leadership. The only thing I saw the other day was a man who stepped on his principles and betrayed many in his party. I see that it is up to those of us who truly understand what Bush and Cheney to carry the burden to ensure that their misguided politics do not continue past 2004. You have made that effort more difficult with your recent actions. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I will vote for him in 2004. He is showing courage, vision, and leadership and I only hope that some of his qualities begin to rub off on you.

:: DM1 10/28/2003 10:42:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Plight of George W. Bush

I've noticed recently that George Bush's mother has been out trashing those that criticize her son. I think that Mother Bush needs to step back and take a deep breath. What people are criticizing is his disasterous performance as president. Some people do indeed hate George Bush, but he had a 90% approval rating after 9/11, the media never uttered a discouraging word, and the democrats, at least most of them took a dive. All Bush had to do was build on the good will that came his way after the attacks. What did he do? Besides attacking the Taliban, which most of the American People and the rest of the world supported, including the French, Bush began to believe that he had a blank check to do as he pleases. The Congress and the conservative right have enabled him. Then what did he do, I think that you need to performance

:: DM1 10/28/2003 05:47:00 AM [+] ::
...

Blast from the past:

Memo to Sheep:

United States Military Casualities in Iraq as of March 20, 2003:

Killed: 353
Wounded: 2014

Total casualities 2,367

Had enough, yet? The person that you voted for as president is still telling you that you need to hear more of the "good news". Is there any news he can give you that will make the 2,367 casualities and counting anymore acceptable? Your president is telling you that the Iraqis are happy that we are there. We have over 2,300 casualities at a time when your president says we are being welcomed. I hope for you sake that they don't begin to hate us!

:: DM1 10/27/2003 08:21:00 PM [+] ::
...

Where Did The Time Go

Where did the time go? Bob Hope died a few months ago at the age of 100. Where did the time go. I remember watch Bob Hope's USO tours during the Vietnam War when I was a kid. I grew up watching The real movie gangsters: Edward G. Robison, Humphrey Bogart, and my main man, James Cagney. They were all born in the 1890s! Leave It to Beaver, The Andy Griffith Show, Dennis The Manace. All of the children in these shows are now over 50 or pushing 50. The Beatles split up 33 years ago! What? How did that happen? I used to watch the Jimmy Durante Show, Red Skelton, and Dean Martin. They are all gone. The Rat Pack is no more and the only surviving member, Joey Bishop, is at least 80, I think. as you can see most of my memories relate to television. Most kids raised in the 60s and 70s will tell you that television was what we did. School, sports, and television, that was how we lived. I remember the 30th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1971, the Kent State Shootings, the Patty Hearst kidnapping and the Lyons Sisters. The Lyons Sisters? They were two little girls, 12 and 10, who disappeared in 1975 on their way to Wheaton Plaza in Wheaton Maryland. They have never been seen or heard from again. Twenty-eight years have past since that day. How does time slip by so rapidly? One minute you are six years old in first grade and the next minute you are past 40 and wondering where the time went. There's no point to this post. I just wonder where all the time went.

:: DM1 10/18/2003 06:16:00 AM [+] ::
...

Getting to the Bottom of 9/11

Here's a piece of an article by Eric Boehlert in today's Salon:

Is the 9/11 commission getting tough?
Subpoena against FAA suggests signs of life -- and victims' families are suddenly hopeful.- - - - - - - - - - - -

Oct. 16, 2003 | The national 9/11 commission's decision Wednesday to issue subpoenas against the Federal Aviation Administration, after it failed to hand over key investigative documents, may signal a new get-tough phase for the inquiry, as the commission tries to unravel the failures that made possible the Sept. 11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000.

Makes you wonder why the Bush Administration is dragging it's feet in turning over documents. Be it the FAA or other government agencies, the Administration obviously has put out the word to slow walk information. The Commission's deadline is May 2004. What a sad and pathetic little people the Bushies are. Bush's minions have always put the blame for 9/11 on Bill Clinton, but it's not Clinton that is holding up the investigation. Too bad that the Commission is not investigating Clinton's genitals because then the Bushies would have plenty of documentation complete with pictures.

Wake up sheep, they are coming to get you!

:: DM1 10/17/2003 06:12:00 AM [+] ::
...

Thank God for Republicans Looking Out For The Troops

From Maureen Dowd's latest column:

On Monday, Representative George Nethercutt Jr., a Republican from Washington State who visited Iraq, chimed in to help the White House: "The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day." The congressman puts the casual back in casualty.

:: DM1 10/16/2003 11:19:00 PM [+] ::
...

Give Bush his $87 Billion

Give Bush his $87 billion.

From a column by Monica Perin:

Secrecy shrouds Halliburton hiring frenzy at Houston hotel

Houston Business Journal
A pair of Houston pest control contractors are among hundreds of American and foreign workers being recruited by a division of Houston-based Halliburton to work on the rebuilding of Iraq.

The recruitment operation is headquartered at the Wyndham Greenspoint Hotel and the Holiday Inn Intercontinental on John F. Kennedy Boulevard.

KBR, formerly Kellogg Brown & Root, is recruiting a wide array of workers from all over the world and bringing them to Houston for orientation, background checks, training and deployment.

They are being sent primarily to Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.

KBR's Web site last week listed 60 job openings in Iraq, 90 in Kuwait and 50 in Afghanistan.

But the recruitment operation is being kept under tight wraps, apparently due to continuing political controversy over Halliburton's role in the lucrative post-war work.

:: DM1 10/16/2003 10:38:00 PM [+] ::
...

Damn Liberal Media

The Liberal Media is at it again only reporting the bad news and not the "good news". I am reading the headline on page one of one of these liberal rags. The headline says "Baghad bomber kills six". Nowhere in the article does it report the "good news". Uh, oh. Hold on this is from today's Washington Times, a stauchly conservative paper. I guess they haven't received the Bush talking points yet. Never mind.

:: DM1 10/13/2003 05:15:00 PM [+] ::
...

My President He Wrote Me a Letter

There's a rumor going around that a copy of a letter being sent home by some soldiers is a duplicate that extols the "good news" in Iraq. Now the letter supposedly highlights many of the talking points used by the Bush Administration. Now a cynical person might think that this letter was drafted by someone other than these soldiers and it makes one wonder if things are going so well, why is there a need for someone to draft a "good news" letter for soldiers to sign and send home?

:: DM1 10/13/2003 05:11:00 PM [+] ::
...

Blast from the Past October 2003

Memo to Sheep:

Why is Bush and his boys trying to tell us how great Iraq is? They just don't get it that while American soldiers are being killed, maimed (see the wounded at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.), and wounded, most Americans don't want to hear about Iraqis getting jobs, building schools, and upgrading their electrical grid. Saddam is gone and there are no weapons of mass destruction. Weren't those the two primary objectives of the war.

Well, until Bush and his useful idiots realized that the intelligence on Iraq was not promising. So they started stretching intelligence and came up with the goal of bringing democracy to Iraq. Talk about "mission creep". Enough already, understand that the Iraqis who are fighting us, will continue to fight us as long as we are in Iraq. They were born and raised in Iraq, they are going nowhere. They have all the time in the world to continue to kill, maim, and wound American soldiers.

So please spare me the "good news about Iraq". Tell me the good news when they stop killing our young soldiers!

:: DM1 10/12/2003 01:48:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to the Dittoheads:

So, the "Great One" is a junkie. Hey, don't get mad at me. Ken Hamlin, known as the conservative "Black Avenger", called Rush a junkie. What do you do now? Think for yourselves? Why not try it. Rush led you down a path that you bought hook, line, and sinker. I hear a lot of you now talking about having compassion for Rush and his illness. For a young black man with the same problem, you label him a menace to society, a criminal, and a degenerate. So, are you going to be consistent, or are you going to prove what black folks have known all along? That when it comes to black folk many white folks always think that get they deserve everything they get. They're poor, jobless, uneducated, "loose", welfare dependent, and any other negative thing that you can think of. Rush on the other hand lives in a $24 million mansion and is heard daily by millions of listeners. He is adored and worshiped by the conservative movement.

So what's Rush's excuse? Back pain? Why didn't he go to his doctor if it was his back? Between Rush and the poor, black so and so with no hope and no future, who is really in pain. Who really deserves compassion and understanding? You're right, Rush! And that's why there will not be any real rapproachment between the races. You really believe that Rush is different and should be treated differently.

Rush with all his money and fame is no better than that poor, black wretch that you all disparage daily. Let's see if he is subject to the same laws as those poor, black wretches. I doubt it. I hope that the "rule of law" will prevail, especially since if true, Rush was guilty of multiple felonies over an extended period of time. Now is the time for you sheep to reevaluate your slavish behavior to these phony right wing talk show hosts. Listen, everybody is dirty in his or her own way. Acting as if you are morally superior to the rest of us is getting to be tiresome. It's time for you to practice not what Rush preaches, but what Jesus preaches. You like to refer to yourselves as Christians. Well now you can start acting like "true" Christians. You can minister to Rush and pray for him, but when you are finished go and help that miserable, poor, black wretch.

:: DM1 10/12/2003 01:31:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

Ah, but are the chickens coming home. Eight years of moralizing to the rest of us and you all have glass houses with many broken windows. Limbaugh, Arnold, Senior White Aides, all are into some kind of tawdry behavior. And still you support them. Bill Clinton was crucified daily. He was accused of murder, rape, drug running, embezzlement, and various other felonies. The only charge that could be proved was that Clinton lied under oath about oral sex and he was impeached. When judging Limbaugh, Arnold, and the White House you owe it to the rest of us to use the same standards of judgement that you used for Bill Clinton. If you can't bring yourselves to do so then do the rest of us a favor; "Shut up!" You are no better than anyone else and as you can see everybody falls short. One thing for sure is that Bill Clinton's Presidency does not look as bad as it once did. That folks could focus only on his crotch is evidence that he must have been doing something right. Whether it was the economy or the world, Clinton tried to lift all boats. He wasn't perfect, but as we see now neither were those who attacked him so viciously on a daily basis.

:: DM1 10/04/2003 01:59:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: DM1 10/03/2003 10:06:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Karen Hunter of The New York Daily News:

(Ms. Hunter wrote a column on the Rush Limbaugh/ESPN Controversy)

Basically, Ms. Hunter hits it on the head. Limbaugh should not have resigned and should have had a chance to follow up on his statements on ESPN. That, his fellow commentator on ESPN's Countdown, Tom Jackson allegedly threatened to quite if Limbaugh was not fired says much more. Usually when white conservatives or white folks in general speak about the black community, it' is in the negative (affirmative action, out of wedlock births, crime, education, etc.). Black sports fans look to sports as a release from the everyday madness. Tom Jackson is no different. That's why his show is a sports show. That doesn't mean that hard issues are not discussed (the hiring of black coaches, bad behavior by black athletes, etc.). However, it was probably not lost on Tom Jackson that Limbaugh is a radio talk show host that usually discusses black America in negative terms. If Jackson takes on Limbaugh, the confrontation could lead to a lot of racial animosity at ESPN and in the country at large. If Jackson doesn't take on Limbaugh, he's a "sell out" and an "Uncle Tom". In other words for Jackson, it's a no win situation. At some point, black folk just want some relief from the everyday reality of growing up black in America. Hence, sports and the shows that lead off the games on Sunday are used by many black sports fans as an oasis against the storm.

Also, following up on one of Ms. Hunter's other points, whatever happened to the millions of white folks who did everything they could to suppress the freedoms of blacks up through the passage of the Civil Rights Laws of the mid-1960's. Did they renounce their beliefs or did they choose other methods of maintaining and perpetuating their long held views? Maybe some of them chose to be talk show hosts.

:: DM1 10/03/2003 10:01:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Fred Barnes:


My response to comments made in support of Rush Limbaugh by Barnes on Special Report on Fox News 10/2/03:

Once again you have it wrong and your comments are wholly ridiculous. There are millions of people in jail right now, especially young black males for buying illegal drugs and using illegal drugs. You call Rush Limbaugh's alleged offenses (he engaged in illegal drug activities on numerous occasions) "minor, minor" offenses. Either you believe that Rush Limbaugh should not be held to the same standard that a young black man is held to. Why is that? Why should not a rich, white, successful, republican, conservative be held to the same standard? Do you have one standard for young black men and another for rich, white, republican, conservative men? From your comments, it is obvious that you do. And that my friend is "RACIST"!

:: DM1 10/02/2003 07:11:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

From Terrence Hunt of the Associated Press. The last paragraph of his article today:

The focus on Rove brought an odd twist to Bush's travels. When the president boarded Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, he walked up the steps and waved - and not a single camera followed. He looked momentarily perplexed. All lenses were trained on Rove at the bottom of the steps.

Fasten your seat belts because we are in for a hell of a ride!

:: DM1 9/30/2003 07:16:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

Well, well, well. Take a look at Buzzflash.Com. Looks like Karl "I didn't snitch!" Rove may be in a little hot water. Next to this truly corrupt and illegimate charade of a president, Bill Clinton is a candidate for Mount Rushmore. Bill Clinton's legacy was never in doubt because I knew I could count on a rich, underachieving frat boy who owes everthing he has to his daddy and his daddy's friends. Bush is a failure and has been one his entire life. That he was able to steal the Presidency and be elected Governor of Texas says a lot about the fraudulent nature of conservatives. Well, Bush's daddy can't help him now. This is the same George Bush that was a knucklehead at Yale and Harvard. The "uncurious" president. A President of the United States is "uncurious" and only listens to the opinion's of his henchmen. Well get ready for the shedding of more blood and money in the insane quest to remake Iraq. Over 1800 casualties to date in Iraq with more than 300 dead. The holiday season is right around the corner, why don't some of you sheep visit Walter Reed Hospital in Washington D.C. Say hello to some of the wounded who are back from Iraq. Try not to wave because the soldier that you wave to may not have two attached arms and hands to wave back. Also, go for walks with some of the wounded though you should get your arms in shape because pushing their wheelchairs will be difficult. Well what do you expect because they have no legs with which to walk. Merry Christmas!

:: DM1 9/30/2003 07:08:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: DM1 9/27/2003 08:45:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

Now the Bush administration is telling you that the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier that Bush landed on was not referring to Iraq, but the accomplishment of the aircraft carrier and its crew.
What? Here's an excerpt from a report by M. L. Lyke in the Seattle Port Dispatch dated May 2, 2003:


At 6 p.m., the crew of 5,300 stood at attention, arms stiff, shoulders held back, hands fisted, as the president began his expected war-is-over speech. A banner strung behind his head proclaimed: "Missions accomplished."

In suit and tie, he told the Lincoln's crew that the conflict had ended, that, because of them, the nation was more secure, the tyrant had fallen and Iraq was free. His speech was interrupted constantly with applause and cheers. But it was his comments about the ship heading home that drew the most sustained whoops and clapping.


How pathetic is the Bush Administration? Now that things are not going as well as they expected, they want us to believe that the banner on the aircraft carrier did not pertain to the Iraq War. Yeah, right!

:: DM1 9/27/2003 08:43:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

The Bush Administration continues to screw things up. I am tired of pointing out all of the failures. How about getting back to basics. Here are some suggestions:

1) Stop lying
2) Stop being arrogant
3) Stop being lazy (Over 250 vacation days since January 2001)
4) Read (An ignorant president is not helpful)
5) End the Iraq occupation (Let the Iraqis govern themselves. Of course there may be a civil war, but instead of killing our soldiers let the Iraqis fight it out. We can back one side or the other with weapons. That's usually how we do it!)
6) Fire Dickie C. Donnie R, Woofie, and Karl "The King Maker" Rove.
7) Stop aligning yourself with the Tom "Where's the Money" Delays of the world.
8) Stop using God to justify your actions.
9) Rollback some of the tax cuts. Some were necessary, but you got greedy. Also, remember the Government needs money to run. Instead of bleeding the country dry, moderate spending (which can be done!).
10) Annouce that you will not seek a second term. Enough already!

:: DM1 9/21/2003 10:06:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Bush Supporters:

Had enough, yet? What is this "death by a thousand cuts"? Face it, Bush is a "miserable failure". Understand that Iraq has cost us about $79 million to date. If Bush gets his $87 billion, the bill rises to $166 billion. And this is only the first six months of combat. An estimated $100 billion is needed to rebuild Iraq so you know that the true amount is much higher. The military has killed so many "innocent" civilians that most Iraqies want them dead or gone. You've got thousands of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 armed to the teeth and scared to death of being ambushed. What happens is that these young people start to error on the side extreme caution and don't hesitate to shoot anyone who even appears to be a threat. The result is 1,500 U.S. casualties and rising. Some reports have casualties running as high as 1700 to 2000. The breakdown is 300 killed and 1200 to 1700 wounded. The ball is in your court . Now what are you prepared to do?

Da' Militant 1

:: DM1 9/16/2003 11:57:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Fox News:

Gentlemen,

As a republican for 17 years, I am more and more amused at the lengths that some republicans will go to win a point. Today, you had a clip of Senator Clinton (and I will give her the respect due) talking about the EPA's Inspector General report. She was speaking about the alleged misrepresentation by the EPA on the air quality at Ground Zero in the months after the WTC terrorist attacks. Interspersed with her comments were those of a republican strategist. What is that all about? I have never seen you do that with President Bush, or anybody else. Now I don't watch your station that often because I know what a "conservative slant" is and the Fox News Channel provides it. However, if the news is about Senator Clinton's comments, why the unnecessary commentary by a republican partisan? It doesn't strike me as fair and balanced, if you don't accord President Bush and other republicans the same treatment.

I like to think that the core republican philosophy is enough to persuade the public at large. Mind you not the type of republicanism that is practiced today, but the more economically and more importantly socially conscience republicans of the 1950s and early 1960s. What I see now is a bunch of bitter and intolerant individuals who seem out of touch with the America that I have come to know. I know that we can do better. I don't need Tom Delay trying to engineer a gerrymandering scam in Texas. I don't need Darryl Issa fomenting a republican purge of a democratic governor. I particularly don't need the partisans like Hannity and Limbaugh that demagogue. I have faith that principled individuals like Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and John McCain will force the far right wing of the party to moderate some of their legislation. I look forward to the day when President Bush and his minions are in retirement. The Republican Party can do better and it must do better.

Da' Militant 1

:: DM1 8/31/2003 01:53:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Bill O'Reilly:

Bill O'Reilly got the Fox Network to sue Al Franken, a former writer for Saturday Night Live and noted liberal activist, for using
Fox's trademark "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his latest book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". The case was thrown out by the presiding judge and was determined to be "wholly without merit". Here is the text of my email to "Irish" Bill:


Irish Bill,

What is wrong with you? You are quick to denigrate and condemn those that do not agree with you, but a lawsuit against Al Franken? You can do better. You talk a lot about frivolous lawsuits. Well Fox's lawsuit against Franken was as frivolous as you can get. Why don't you show that you are a stand up guy and pay his legal bills connected with the suit. If you want any credibility on the subject of frivolous lawsuits then you will square "Liberal Al" away. If it was just talk then you are just another windbag with situational ethics. Just a thought.

Da' Militant 1

:: DM1 8/31/2003 01:51:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Tim Russert:

John Kerry was on Meet The Press on 8/31/03. Russert asked Kerry about a statement he made about George Bush in the recent past. Kerry essentially said that Bush (who was two years behind Kerry at Yale) was the same person today as he was at Yale. Russert asked him what he meant and Kerry wouldn't respond specifically to the question. Here is the text of my email to Russert:

Timmy,

John Kerry is too much of a gentleman to say what he felt about George Bush. What he meant by saying that Bush was the same person today as he was at Yale is that Bush is an "amiable dunce". Of course Bush is a likable fellow. How do you think he's managed all of these years. Just goes to show you how far a big name and big money can take you! Why don't you invite Bush on and question him? He deserves to have his feet put to the fire, though I have my doubts that you could, or would ask the really tough questions. Maybe you could start with the 90 page report he recieved on Iraq's WMD BEFORE the war. Ask him why didn't he read the footnotes at the end of the document that noted a split in the various agencies on the veracity of the Niger/Uranium claim? Ask him how could he as President, ready to send thousands of young people to war and hundreds to their deaths, not have read the report in its entirety? Didn't he owe it to the Nation and its soldiers to be fully informed? Didn't he have an obligation to act intelligently and responsibly? Anyway, John Kerry was dead on the money about Bush and we are all now dealing with his lack of intelligence and basic knowledge of the world and its history.

Da' Militant 1

:: DM1 8/31/2003 01:45:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to America:

A taste of Ashcroft justice "For His Family":

From Salon:

Ashcroft's nephew got probation after major pot bust
Although his arrest for growing 60 plants could have landed him in federal prison, Alex Ashcroft was tried in state court and avoided jail -- despite his uncle's crusade for tougher federal drug laws and mandatory prison sentences

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Daniel Forbes

Jan. 12, 2001 | The nephew of Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft received probation after a felony conviction in state court for growing 60 marijuana plants with intent to distribute the drug in 1992 -- a lenient sentence, given that the charges against him often trigger much tougher federal penalties and jail time. Ashcroft was the tough-on-drugs Missouri governor at the time.

Alex Ashcroft, then 25, and his brother Adam, 19, were arrested and charged with production and possession of marijuana after police raided their home in January, 1992. A housemate, Kevin Sheely, then 24, was also arrested. Officials said approximately 60 marijuana plants were found growing in a basement crawl space, and a lighting, irrigation and security system was also discovered.

Although growing more than 50 plants often triggers federal prosecution, and results in jail time -- thanks to federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws Ashcroft fought to toughen as senator -- Alex Ashcroft was prosecuted on a state charge and received probation. His brother Adam did not live in the house and was never prosecuted. END


There's more, but I think you get the gist of it! Should I go on? But I must! There will be no relief for you until the "fraud" and his henchmen are vanquished!

:: DM1 8/15/2003 10:52:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

How are you doing? I know it's been rough cleaning up Bush's mess, but just remember, you voted for him! A lot of soldiers are being wounded and killed, but just remember, you voted for him! Osama and Saddam are chillin', not like Uday and Qusay. but just remember you voted for him! Come to think of it what is happening to the country in a lot of ways is your responsibility because you voted for the "Un-elected Fraud". Hurts doesn't it, to know that he really is an idiot and an "average american". This is why we try to vote for Americans who have an above average intellect because they need to be able to discern, comprehend, think on their feet and build consensus among other traits. Bush has been on vacation the better part of 250 days. He's yet to be in office three years! Such is the life of the "average american"!

:: DM1 8/15/2003 10:38:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Conservative Republicans:

Here's more on the failure of Bush to address the upgrading of the energy grid. This article was on the Nema Publications web site and was dated February 2001:

NEMA Urges Bush Energy Team to Promote Stable Power Grid

In response to a request by the Bush transition team, NEMA has submitted a white paper urging the Administration to enact "rules and incentives to maintain adequate supplies of power at the lowest possible cost, and for maintaining electrical system reliability."

In the transmission white paper, NEMA notes that the development of competitive power markets, coupled with the emergence of retail markets, has resulted in significant new uses of the interstate transmission grid. The grid has thus been subjected to flows of energy about which little is known, created transmission bottlenecks, and increased reliability problems. Experts believe that additional investment will be required to expand transmission capacity.

That investment may be difficult to come by, however. The association’s white paper points out that uncertainties surrounding financing, facility-siting, post-deregulation ownership, and policies governing the transition to regional transmission organizations, are making utilities reluctant to invest in new transmission facilities.

It also notes that the permitting process for the construction of new transmission facilities or expansion of existing ones is becoming ever more problematic. In the past, for instance, transmission lines were built primarily to meet state requirements to serve a utility’s "native loads." Today, new transmission facilities in most locations are no longer likely to exist primarily to benefit a utility’s customers or a regulator’s constituents, but for other purposes like the support of regional, multi-state, power markets.

NEMA thus contends that, "state commissions and local authorities are less likely to authorize the development and construction of new transmission facilities. This raises the question of a larger role for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in jurisdiction over transmission facilities."

The North American Electric Reliability Council has estimated that annual investments in new transmission facilities have been declining by about $100 million a year for the past two decades. While that precipitous drop was taking place, load growth was moving in the opposite direction. EPRI has estimated that in the ten years ending in 1999, electricity demand in the U.S. rose by approximately 30 percent, while additional transmission capacity grew by just 15 percent. The trend continued to ramp up in 2000, above the ten-year trend, due to weather extremes and the increased use of computer data centers. The diverging trend lines strongly suggest that an immediate, powerful remedy is badly needed.

To insure that increased consumer demand is met and at the lowest possible cost, NEMA recommends a series of measures that combined will (1) increase the reliability of the grid; (2) facilitate the expansion and upgrade of existing transmission facilities and promote the role of technology in achieving this objective; and (3) encourage increased investment in new facilities and technologies.

Specifically, the NEMA position statement delivered to the Bush transition team says NEMA supports "policies that create enforceable and mandatory reliability standards to ensure that the interstate transmission grid is not operated in a manner that adversely affects system reliability. To protect consumers, NEMA urges Congress and the Administration to act quickly to enact the NERC consensus language on electric reliability—either as a stand-alone bill that provides a first step towards improving reliability, or as part of comprehensive electric restructuring legislation."

NERC developed language included in major electric restructuring bills introduced in the House and Senate in the 106th Congress. S.207 was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, but neither bill passed both houses. The NERC language, providing a framework for the development and enforcement of mandatory reliability standards, was endorsed by virtually all segments of the electric utility industry.

NEMA’s white paper recommends further that the foundation of any new transmission policy should rest upon the creation of a regulatory structure that:

Promotes the use of technology to protect and enhance the integrity and reliability of the existing interstate transmission grid in the near term;
Removes siting and permitting impediments that currently serve as a barrier to the construction of new facilities;
Ensures, through use of rate incentives and other similar market measures, that investments in new transmission facilities will be recovered and a competitive return for the investment made;
Provides authority to states to allow them to enter into regional compacts to address siting issues; and
Provides FERC with the authority to require utilities to enlarge, extend, or improve transmission facilities upon application and after referring the matter to a joint federal-state board.
Finally, NEMA recommends that Congress make sure that the Department of Energy’s Transmission Reliability program is adequately funded and its programs applied "in a manner that complements and encourages industry’s own efforts."

NEMA Vice President for Government Affairs Tim Feldman, the association’s representative to the transition team, said NEMA’s position was hammered out in full consultation with representatives of the organization’s policy committees. "We’re comfortable," he said, "that if our strategies are implemented, the difficult transition we are experiencing in California and other parts of the country can be smoothed, that consumers will benefit, and that power reliability will be assured at a reasonable cost."END



There you have it! More than two years ago, Bush was warned about the power grid and the need for upgrades. What did he do? Well judging from yesterday, not enough!

Da' Militant 1

:: DM1 8/15/2003 10:25:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Republican Conservatives:

I've been away for a while because you are bordering on insane. Did I hear Sean "Weasel" Hannity blame the blackout on Bill Clinton today? Is this your defense of Bush's and the Republican Congress' lack of action. Didn't Dick "D-Money" Cheney hold an energy meeting with his gang to divide the energy spoils. Shouldn't that meeting have focused on the aging energy infrastructure? Obviously, it didn't. So what did they meet about and why was their strategy a failure. This of course assumes that they even gave a damn about the poor saps in Ohio, Michigan, and New York. Let's go to the video tape:

From Joe Conason in today's Salon:

The president's response to the blackout was predictable: Use the occasion to promote the interests of his supporters in the oil and electricity industries -- and to proclaim that he has been on top of this decades-old problem all along. According to the New York Times, the White House plans to use the blackout to promote its energy bill, written by corporate lobbyists and the vice president (but I repeat myself).


"Of course, we'll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized," Bush told reporters. "I happen to think it does, and have said so all along."

Whatever he has been saying all along, his administration and its comrades on Capitol Hill haven't done much to address the decay of the grid -- an issue not easily solved by deregulation. David Sirota, former communications director for the minority on the House Appropriations Committee, sent around a note today pointing out that in June 2001, the White House and Congressional Republicans voted down a proposal to provide $350 million in federally backed loans for reconstruction and modernization of the grid. Its sponsor was Sam Farr, a California Democrat who commented at the time, rather prophetically, "without timely intervention from the federal government, the crisis is likely to spread to other states." END


Do you notice that it was Bush and the Republican Congress who came out against modernizing the grid. For a measly $350 million the grid could have started to undergo some modernization. Where did the money go? Can you say "tax cut" ? So there you have it "Weasel". You and the rest of your cult have the real story and still you blame Clinton. I'm being to think that you wish that you could trade places with Monica. I have never seen so much anger. It's almost like a lover scorn. Clinton pays attention to everyone, but you. You goad him and goad him and still he pays you no mind while he's making millions of dollars. It just riles your asses. Well not to worry. I doubt that most of you will be around much longer. The lies that you have had to spread and defend are becoming much to numerous. Even poor Dr. "I hate my mother" Laura is converting back to Christianity. Talk about sowing what you reap! I really hope that you choke on the truth because after today that is all that is on the menu!

Da' militant 1

:: DM1 8/15/2003 09:53:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Republicans:

It feels like the wheels are coming off of the bus. doesn't it? You hitched your wagon to Bush and Cheney and now here you are. Let's hope we find Osama. Let's hope we find Saddam. Where are those WMDs? How about this economy? What is the answer? War and tax cuts. As you can see the combination can be devastating. Deficits where there were surpluses. Well, I've just pulled out my lucky rabbit's foot. Let's all close our eyes and hope!

:: DM1 7/26/2003 01:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Conservatives:

You are sounding more Clintonian as the days go by. Any intelligent critical thinking person knows that the Bush Administration hyped the case against Iraq. With Clinton it was one word: "is" with Bush it was the State of the Union Address to the nation. Is Bush just a stuffed shirt that can easily be swayed? Is he so devoid of knowledge that his head can be filled by any information whether it's right or wrong? You keep blaming Clinton; however, Bush has been President for more than two years. You keep saying that he is doing a good job. Where? How? The domestic economy? Afghanistan? Iraq? Osama? Saddam? All open questions. Why not hold Bush accountable for all that is happening on his watch. He was in office for eight months prior to 9/11. He spent most of August 2001 at his "ranch" clearing brush. Where was his concern? What actions did he take? What did he know, or should have known? The questions will be answered at some point in the future and all the "spin" in the world will not save him.

:: DM1 7/25/2003 12:07:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to America:

Folks, you better wake up. What went on yesterday in the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. Congress was no different from the type of fascist actions that occurred in Nazi Germany. Read the story for yourself, but keep in mind the altercation between Democrat Pete Stark and that republican "wimp", and he is a wimp in trying to suggest that 71 year old Pete Stark was physically threatening to him even though the republican was 20 years younger than Mr. Stark. Oh I forgot, Stark called him a "Fruitcake" too. I remember how terrified I was when someone once called me a "fruitcake".

The republican chairman of the committee Bill Thomas called the Capitol Police prior to the incident involving Stark. He called the Capitol Police to harass/remove the Democratic Member of the Ways and Means Committee from an adjacent library room where they had gone too discuss their strategy for dealing with the illegal actions of Thomas in trying push through a drug prescription bill. America, you better ask yourself if this is the type of government that you were founded on. You don't have to vote democratic, but you better do something to rid yourself of these self-styled nazis that refer to themselves as republicans. Not all republicans, because Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, and a few others are honorable men and women, but the rest have a supremist view of themselves, and believe no other opinions matter, but theirs!

:: DM1 7/19/2003 01:26:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Julian Bond:

I earlier said that you had erred in referring to the Republicans as nazis. Please accept my apology, you were absolutely right. I will be turning in my party membership card ASAP. I will become an Independent rather than stay in a party full of zealots, cowards, and frauds.

Chairman of the Ways Committee Bill Thomas understand that you have fired the first salvo in the next phase of the struggle to free the citizens and the country from republican tyranny. You called the Capitol Police on your fellow lawmakers and citizens. You say that the police were called to quell a disturbance between Democrat Pete Stark and a member of the republican side of the committee. The rest of the democrats had decided to retire to a side library to discuss their response to the ambush that had just taken place with the prescription bill vote. You know that they had only received the marked up bill the night before. You cowardly called the police, not for the supposed "almost fight" between Representative Stark and his republican colleague. What were Mr. Stark's offenses? He had the nerve to respond in kind when his republican colleague told him to shut up. He had only requested that the bill be read. You told him that he was too late and basically you were trying to get the bill passed without the democrats ever having a chance to read the contents.

As I said, my apologies to Mr. Bond. This abuse of the Constitution and American democratic principles will not stand. Very well, the battle is joined. The people of this great nation will reclaim our birthright and you and your kind will be relegated to "the dustbin of history." Bill Thomas and those republicans that have expressed support for his unadulterated abuse of power are in fact nazis and would have thrived in pre-World War II Germany. This is not the type of country I spent four years in the Army defending. Now is the time for all true American patriots to stand up and "throw the bums out!" We can do better. We must do better!

:: DM1 7/18/2003 09:20:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sean "The Weasel" Hannity:

I sent this email to Hannity and Colmes about Sean Hannity's reaction to Chairman of the NAACP Julian Bond's comments where he called Republicans nazis:


Julian Bond should not have made the comments because while he may believe that Republicans are nazis this kind of rheteric is unhelpful. He should apologize and rethink his priorities and his usefulness to a badly needed dialogue. That said Sean Hannity is a fraud. Ever heard of the term "femi-nazis" its a term that is used frequently by Rush Limbaugh, Hannity's best buddy. Limbaugh was just hired as part of ESPN's football broadcast team. Why has it been okay for Limbaugh to get away with his rheteric for years, yet Hannity says nothing and has never to my knowledge denounced Limbaugh or his comments? A radio personality? That makes his responsibility all that greater. He reaches I believe 15 million folks a day. Julian Bond has been only surfaced because of his comments of a few days ago. Who is truly the most detrimental to a national dialogue? A hate-monger that spews his venom in a speech, or the hate-monger that spews his venom daily to 15 million people?

:: DM1 7/16/2003 10:20:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Republicans:

Don't get mad at the Democrats. Bush gave them the knife. You look as pathetic as you say the Democrats did defending Clinton. Is this the type of president you voted for? And the notion that we are safer because there have been no more attacks since 9/11, understand Osama already did his thing. After 9/11 what more does Osama have to do for the next couple of years. The World Trade Center is gone. You say that 9/11 is responsible for most of our economic woes. Maybe if Bush had done more during the first eight months of 2001, 9/11 would have been prevented. It's easy to blame Clinton, but Bush had been President for more than six months. You say that Clinton did nothing to protect the country. So why didn't Bush make terrorism his number one priority after he was sworn in? Personal responsibility not only applies to Clinton, liberals, blacks, and democrats, it also applies to Republican Presidents and white Republican conservatives.

:: DM1 7/15/2003 06:48:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sean "The Weasel" Hannity:

You are truly a piece of work. On your show tonight you called former Ambassador Joe Wilson a "partisan hack" for coming out against Bush's Iraq/Africa/Uranium claim. Well Joe Wilson was appointed an Ambassador under the first George Bush. Vice President Richard "D-Money" Cheney asked him to go to Africa to check out the Iraq/Africa/Uranium issue in 2002. Wilson to his credit came back to the States and prepared a report that said there was nothing to the claim. This was done in early 2002, well before Bush's January 2003 State of the Union Address. You are so out done because behind the bluster you know that your boy lied and you could never admit it because of your own pseudo-reality. You and your boys spent eight years chasing Clinton's jock and to now have to face the reality of a "Christain Conservative President" lying to the American People is more than you can ever bear. Though as true Christians your charge is to seek the truth. Just goes to show why you always have to remind people that you are Christian. Just live up to the standards that you and your ilk created for Clinton. Just remember it was the hypocrites that Jesus rebuked!

:: DM1 7/14/2003 09:59:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to the Bush Administration:

All of your problems can be solved by taking the following steps:

1. Find Saddam
2. Find Osama
3. Make peace with the U.N. and get U.N. troops on the ground in Iraq
4. Admit your mistakes
5. Stop being secretive and unilateral.
6. Refocus your economic strategy by creating a new Civilian Conservation Corps that will rebuild the infrastructure of the country. It will create jobs, spur economic output, and reduce unemployment.

These are only a few of the steps that you need to take, but by doing so you will be surprise at the level of support that you will receive for your efforts!

:: DM1 7/13/2003 05:53:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to George W. Bush:

So you have moved on from the Iraq/Niger/Uranium issue. Well because you are not the King of the U.S. you will respond fully to all of the questions that are being raised. How cowardly was it to go to Africa after admitting that the Iraq/Africa/Uranium statement in your State of the Union to the Nation was false/inaccurate/a lie? Who are you to tell the American People that you have moved on from this issue when you were out of the country when the admission was made. Arrogance and hubris are not traits that are becoming to a president even for one who was appointed and not elected. You will move on from this issue only when you and your minions have given a full and complete accounting of all the statements made about Iraq and WMD. We, the taxpayers, pay your salary. You are accountable to us and in 2004 we will exercise our responsibility and vote you out of office. What a complete and utter disgrace!

:: DM1 7/13/2003 10:49:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Senator Robert Byrd:

This is in reference to your speech on the Senate floor on July 10, 2003. Once again your eloquence is exceeded only by your patriotism, character, and integrity. You have consistently expressed the feelings and emotions of many Americans, and we are proud to have you as our spokesman. I wish you godspeed in your efforts to unmask this charade of a presidential administration. While there are those who try to dismiss you, they can not dismiss your words and the facts that they convey. I know that your years have been long and that the homestead beckons, but as a fellow American, I hope that the Lord gives you many more years as a trusted servant of this great nation. We are forever in your debt.


I sent this message to Senator Byrd this morning as he seems to be the only democrat or republican who is articulating the concerns of many Americans. For those Republicans who are still carrying water for Bush. You are as much to blame for what is happening than anyone else. Where is your accountability of the Bush Administration. You spent eight years telling democrats that they were not critical enough of Clinton and that they were aiding and abetting his behavior and lies. If only Bush would have an extramarital affair and lie about it, maybe then you would pay more attention. Show the rest of the country that you meant what you said about honesty and integrity in the White House. I will take Clinton's dishonesty about sex over Bush's honesty in the past two and a half years because honestly, YOU ARE GETTING SCREWED!

:: DM1 7/12/2003 11:33:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Joe "There's a dead girl in my office!" Scarborough:

I see that you have a show on MSNBC. Just two questions: How did a dead girl turn up in your office and how does that piece of information make it pass MSNBC's Department of Human Resources.

:: DM1 7/11/2003 10:50:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

I know, I know, more bad news!

U.S. alters reason for war on Iraq

Rumsfeld defends decision to attack despite fact some evidence that led to invasion was false

By CHRISTINE BOYD
With reports from the Guardian, Reuters
Thursday, July 10, 2003 - Page A10


The U.S. administration has abruptly revised its explanation for invading Iraq, as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asserted that a changed perspective after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- not fresh evidence of banned weapons -- provoked the war.

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Mr. Rumsfeld testified yesterday before the Senate armed services committee.

"We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light, through the prism of our experience on 9/11."
It was an about-face from a man who confidently proclaimed in January: "There's no doubt in my mind but that they [the Iraqi government] currently have chemical and biological weapons." (He was seconded in March by Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.")
Mr. Rumsfeld's reversal came as the administration scrambled to defend itself from accusations that it deliberately used false or misleading information to bolster one of its primary justifications for the war. END




So there you have it! More lies and deceit. Don't get mad at me I'm just reporting the facts! This is your government at work. I'm trying to hold it accountable to the American People. How about you? PEACE

:: DM1 7/11/2003 10:19:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

More bad news on George Bush's sewardship of the nation's economy:

This story is from Reuters in todays New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 10 — The number of Americans claiming jobless benefits late last month hit its highest point in more than 20 years, the government said today in a report underscoring the persistent weakness of the nation's labor market.
The number of idled workers on the benefit rolls increased by 87,000 in the week ended June 28, to 3.82 million, the highest level since February 1983, the Labor Department said.

It also said first-time claims for unemployment insurance rose by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 439,000 last week from 434,000 a week earlier, surprising economists on Wall Street who had expected claims to decline. END


So there you have it. Once again the stench of failure permeates the Bush Administration! Though you have eyes you don't see. Though you have ears, you do not hear. If it wasn't for those stubborn facts, you could stay in Utopia! But alas, I will continue to shake you from your slumber.

:: DM1 7/11/2003 09:39:00 AM [+] ::
...

Ode to the Sheep:

King George! King George!
What have you done?
Our world you've torn asunder
and replaced it with a rumor of war
of cannons, of night, and thunder.

You told us that things would all turn out
You said that you had a plan
Now here we sit broke and unemployed
No jobs to lend a hand.

Cut their taxes! Go to war!
Give me your young for fodder!
For I have plans that don't include you
Shut up! Don't make it harder.

Be the sheep that I raised you to be
And fatter yourselves up well
And when I've finished my plunder and death
I'll see you all in hell!

:: DM1 7/11/2003 09:28:00 AM [+] ::
...

ODE TO AMERICA:

I saw a nation standing strong
like an Oak in the midst of a storm,
but like a child lost in the woods
things started to go wrong.

It took it's soul and blood and tears
and sold them to the highest bidder
and here it sits in a smelly old hole
an outhouse some call a shi--er.

Give me liberty! Give me death!
Are words we used to admire
And now here we sit hopeless and lost
at the hands of a country squire!

:: DM1 7/11/2003 09:20:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC):

Either stop frontin', or change party affiliations. The country doesn't need republican-lite, it needs a viable two-party system. I am a black "liberal" republican and only want my party to get rid of the hustlers and frauds that now occupy the top levels of government. I'm for republicans like Chuck Hagel, Dick Luger, and John "Johnnie Mac" McCain. These are men of character and integrity. Yet, the likes of Ashcroft, Bush, Cheney, and Delay are running the country and running it into a ditch!

You, the DLC, are not helping my party or the country as long as you don't stand up to ABCD. Like that? ABCD: A-shcroft, B-ush, C-heney, D-elay. ABCD has given you all of the ammunition you'll ever need to depose them and still you run away like scared rabbits. Is there no sanity? Are there no men of courage remaining? Well, that's why I'm here because it is way past time to turn up the heat and return this nation and it's people back to the road map of prosperity and true liberty!

:: DM1 7/11/2003 09:09:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

Get out your crying towels again. Check this out. This is from CBSNEWS.COM. It purports to explain how the Iraq/Niger/Uranium claim got into Bush's State of the Union Address in January.

National Security Correspondent David Martin.

CIA officials warned members of the president’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

The White House officials responded that the September paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: "Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that's how the charge was delivered.

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said in the speech. END


So there you have it. The Bush Administration calculated that even if the Iraq/Niger/Uranium story was false it could blame British intelligence. This my friends is not an act of presenting inaccurate intelligence to the American People as a pretext for war, it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the public to support the Bush Administration's aims. In fact, Bush knew that the information he presented to the nation was a LIE. You said the country needed more honesty. You said lying to the American People was an impeachable offense. Bush was not under oath? So, it's okay to lie to the American People in a State of the Union address to gin up support for a war. It's okay to deny that you lied to the American People when much of the evidence shows that you knew or should have known that such a claim was false.

Is this the America, and the type of president that you voted for? I thought you were tired of government lies and secrecy? Oh, yeah! I keep forgetting those standards only applied to Bill Clinton. And after all didn't he lie about a b-job? That's much more serious than lying to the nation about a pretense for war that has resulted in 1200 U.S. military casualties and counting!

:: DM1 7/11/2003 08:53:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Malik Zulu Shabazz (Leader of the New Black Panther Party):

Please do the brother a favor and go home. I mean at some point, you have to let it go. This is not the 1960s and you are not Malcolm X. A million child march? Come on, haven't we've done enough marching? How about some concrete action? How about a day set aside for a national seminar on reading, writing and arithmetic? Just think all over the country for one day parents and teachers sit down with children and teach basic educational skills. This approach would truly be more productive and sincere. Just a thought.

:: DM1 7/10/2003 07:25:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

Guess how much money was allocated by Congress for military operations in Iraq in the recently passed defense authorization bill? Let's go to the video tape:

More Bad News from today's Washington Post

In its most detailed assessment of the cost of the war, the Pentagon said it has already incurred $900 million in unanticipated personnel costs and about $4.1 billion in weapons depot maintenance costs that are "beyond the scope of the . . . programs to absorb." An additional $612 million in family separation allowances and imminent danger pay demanded by Congress will also have to be covered by shifting funds from other accounts.

The military hopes to spend $232 million to replace Air Force transport equipment, $217 million to buy new Tomahawk cruise missiles, $638 million on munitions, $389 million to convert Chinook helicopters for special operations, and $109 million to upgrade Army combat missile systems. And those are only the preliminary assessments of equipment loss, the report cautioned.

The House this week approved a $369 billion defense spending bill that includes no money for military operations in Iraq, a move that "is very hard to understand or explain," said Thomas Kahn, the Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee.

Defense Department officials remained sanguine about the long-term issues. The report to Congress continued to predict that "only a limited number of U.S. forces will remain" in Iraq by fall 2004.

END

Did you get that? Zero dollars! No money, no rebuilding, no weapons of mass destruction. Twelve hundred U.S. military casualties. Well at least we got rid of Saddam, right? He was a tyrant and a murderer, right? That's why we went to war, right? The Iraqis are better off, right? American troops are only being killed by Saddam loyalists, right? We did the right thing all the way around didn't we?

What if we had not cooked the evidence and stuck to what we knew? What if we had let the weapons inspectors finish their jobs? What if we had listened to our friends save for France and had more patience? Didn't Canada in March right before the war started want to give the inspections only two additional weeks? Was Iraq really an imminent threat? Was it all worth it? Didn't our soldiers deserve straight talk? Were all the embellishments neccesary? Let's ask the families of the dead soldiers because they can no longer speak for themselves. Peace

:: DM1 7/10/2003 07:14:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Colin Powell:

Colin, my man, why are you saying Bush doesn't have to apologize. We are way pass that. Check out your remarks in today's Washington Post:


Powell said the issue was "overblown." The president's remarks in January reflected the best available intelligence at the time, Powell said. He said that as he prepared his own Feb. 5 speech to the United Nations, the information on uranium "was not standing the test of time" and he decided not to use it.

So on February 5th of 2003 in your speech to the U.N. you acknowledged that the report of the uranium sale to Iraq by the African country of Niger was weak at best and did not use it to support your case. Yet, the Bush Administration waited until this week while Bush was in Africa to acknowledge that the claim was false. On January 28th of 2003 George Bush said the following in his State of the Union Address:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

What happened between January 28th and February 5th? Why did the Bush Administration wait until July 2003 to acknowledge that the Iraq/Uranium/Niger story was bogus? You knew a week after Bush's speech that the story was suspect. Did you discuss your concerns with Bush? If not, why? If so, why did the Bush Administration continue to float the story? Your best course of action is to stay out of the fight. You know in your heart that the lie was being floated to build up support for the war. Twelve hundred casualties later, was it worth your silence and most of all your integrity?

:: DM1 7/10/2003 06:12:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to America:

This just in:

The Pentagon reported today that at least 1000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq. Combine that with more than 200 killed and you have casualties of 1200 soldiers. This is in only roughly four months of combat. You don't have to do the math that these kinds of losses can not continue. Even if the numbers are halved during the next six months, it still represents a lot of casualities. Maybe if folks had been patient like they ask us to be now that the situation may have turned out better. If nothing else, having other nations and other troops besides Britain would have definitely improved our soldiers survivability. Overwhelming force with many nations participating was the only tenable strategy, but the cowboys couldn't wait. The next time that you see a replay of the "hot dog" landing on the aircraft carrier and strutting around in his flight suit think about the number of killed and wounded soldiers that made it all possible!

:: DM1 7/09/2003 11:41:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Conservative Republicans:

Your boy is in hot water now and what do you do? You fall back on Bill Clinton and scream how he believed Iraq had WMD in 1998 and bombed Iraq. Let's go to the video tape:

Except from Dr. William Piece's Clinton War:

Well, I guess that's sort of a Democratic tradition, but still nearly everyone was surprised when he did it. I mean, that's such breathtaking chutzpah that even some Jews were embarrassed. They were not happy that the war against Iraq that they had been scheming for and urging for so long would be seen as merely a cheap trick to save Bill Clinton from impeachment.

But of course, that's exactly what it is, and that's obvious to everyone with an IQ above 70. That doesn't include the yahoos of the American Legion and similar groups, who like to put on all their medals, salute the flag, and proclaim their loyalty to the commander in chief. But the politicians and media people are not that stupid: crooked, but not stupid. Nevertheless, I was worried right after the attack on Iraq last Wednesday that they would be afraid to say anything against Mr. Clinton's new war. Some of them, of course, were publicly expressing their support for the attack immediately, saying things like, "We should have attacked Saddam a long time ago." And no one wanted to be denounced as an "anti-Semite" for saying anything against the Jews' crusade to destroy Saddam Hussein.

On the other hand, it was easy to see that the brighter ones had figured out that there was no way they could support commander-in-chief Clinton without the stink rubbing off on them. The Jews might be grateful to them at the moment, but in the long run it would look so bad that they didn't want to be associated with it, and so they began a tortured routine of praising the war without mentioning Mr. Clinton. And the impeachment process, which had been derailed for a few hours, was put back on track.

Right after the attack the Republican politicians all were saying darkly that they hoped Clinton had a good excuse for what Congressman Bob Livingston called his "unique" timing. And all Clinton could come up with is that he had to attack before the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which began on December 20, four days after he started the war. He said it would be very offensive to Muslims everywhere if he started the war during Ramadan. When two or three leading Republicans -- Mississippi's Trent Lott, for example -- suggested that he had started the war in an attempt to postpone impeachment, he pretended to be offended. He said, with a phony tone of wounded dignity, "I don't think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." Of course, that's exactly what every serious person did believe. But as I had feared, the politicians didn't have the courage or the honesty to stand on that position, and Lott and the others who had questioned the timing quickly backed down.

One Congressman, who was afraid to let his name be used, told the Washington Times that he had found a great deal of cynicism among senior military leaders in the Pentagon about their commander in chief. They were in daily contact with the White House in the weeks before the war began, and the generals and admirals had noticed that the White House's eagerness to begin bombing Iraq grew in intensity as one undecided Republican after another declared that he would vote to impeach. When the Congressman discussed the timing of the war with the military leaders, they laughed with contempt. They all had the same question: "Why now?" They all considered Clinton's stated excuse to be a pathetic lie.

Clinton hadn't built a coalition against Iraq, he didn't have a clear war plan and hadn't given the Pentagon time to develop one. There was no strategic objective for the attack. Furthermore, on Sunday, December 13, Clinton had told the Pentagon to prepare to launch an assault against Iraq that week. That was two days before the U.N. report claiming that Iraq was not cooperating with weapons inspectors was sent to the White House, late Tuesday night. Clinton waited until receiving the UN report to actually start the bombing, but it was clear to everyone in the Pentagon that that was phony, that he already had made up his mind on Sunday, three days earlier. They were all convinced that they had been ordered to go to war solely to postpone Clinton's impeachment. That's what the top military leaders of our nation believed when they began firing cruise missiles into Iraq on Clinton's orders.

One person in the know who spoke out was former chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He's certainly no friend of Iraq, and he resigned last August in protest against what he believed was an insufficiently aggressive effort to discover Iraq's weapons facilities. But hours before Clinton attacked Iraq last week, when Ritter knew the attack was coming, he told the New York Post that Richard Butler, the U.N. official in charge of weapons inspection, is collaborating with Clinton and his Jewish advisers rather than doing his U.N. job honestly and correctly. Ritter said, "What Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set-up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing." Ritter said that officials in the U.S. government told him that when the weapons inspectors were sent back into Iraq on November 19, after Saddam had capitulated on November 14 to head off an imminent U.S. attack and said he would not interfere with the inspections, the inspectors were secretly instructed to provoke a crisis that could be used as a pretext to begin the war. Which, of course, is exactly what I told you would happen, in my broadcasts of November 21 and November 28. Richard Butler went along with the scheme and produced a phony report saying that Iraq was not cooperating, but Clinton, seeing impeachment looming, couldn't even wait for that report. And the International Atomic Energy Agency, also monitoring the situation in Iraq, reported that the Iraqis were doing everything they could to comply with the weapons inspectors.

END

As you can see, many folks including Scott Ritter believed that Clinton bombed Iraq to save his own hide. No one mentioned the need to bomb Iraq for WMD. So now to hear you use Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq as justification for Bush rings hollow. Keep trying. Basically Bush is as good a liar as you say Clinton was. The business about Iraq, Niger and uranium sales was bogus. The intelligence community knew it and the intelligence committee heard Bush reference the bogus information in his State of the Union Address early this year in January. The Bush Administration only came clean this week about the false claim. Are you saying that in the preceding six months no one in the intelligence community moved to inform Bush that the story was false? Even giving Bush the benefit of the doubt prior to his speech, his minions continued to push the story. Either the intelligence community is thoroughly inept or the Bush Administration perpetuated a lie. Take your pick. Either way, it shows a lack of knowledge and sophistication in dealing with the very volatile Iraq problem. Using Clinton as an alibi is like using Al Capone as a tax law consultant!

:: DM1 7/09/2003 11:23:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to America:

Who was in that SUV? Remember a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. military blew the hell out of a convoy of SUVs heading to Syria. The argument initially was that Saddam and his sons were part of the SUV caravan. The U.S. Government has since backed away from that assertion. Of course this begs the question: Who was in the SUVs that were destroyed. Were they enemies or friendlies? Any women? Any children? Any elderly? One thing is for sure, the people who were in those SUV are DEAD and their bodies have been blown to bits. So once more I ask, "Who was in the SUV?"

:: DM1 7/03/2003 10:13:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

A preview of the effect of Bush's trillions of dollars in tax cuts as reported by Reuters:


Unemployment Rate Surges to 9-Year High


July 3
— WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. unemployment rate shot up in June to a fresh 9-year high while the economy lost 30,000 jobs, the government said on Thursday in an unexpectedly gloomy report on the labor market.

The jobless rate climbed to 6.4 percent last month from May's 6.1 percent, the Labor Department said, a much worse reading than the 6.2 percent forecast by U.S. economists in a Reuters survey. The rate reached the highest level since a matching 6.4 percent in April 1994.

The key data may call into question hopes that have been building in the stock market that the U.S. economy is set for a rebound. Worried about the lackluster state of the economy, the Federal Reserve last week cut short-term interest rates to 1 percent. END


So once again, there you have it. The incompetent fraud "Chimp McSmirk" strikes again! Oh I forgot, it's Bill Clinton's fault. I guess he shouldn't have been so good at what he does. As I have said since the day the "Fraudulent One" was appointed, Bush has and will continue to secure Clinton's legacy.

:: DM1 7/03/2003 10:04:00 AM [+] ::
...