:: Da' Militant One's Lair ::

:: Saturday, July 26, 2003 ::

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 [+] ::
...

Memo to Saxby (My Knee Hurts!) Chambliss the fake Senator for South Carolina:

This is a portion on an article in the Washington Post today about Max Cleland the former Democratic Senator from South Carolina:


"The state of American politics is sickening," he says.

Cleland has come full circle. In 1963, he arrived at American University's Washington Semester Program as a naive student and left dreaming of a career in the Senate. Now, after six years in the Senate, he's back at the Washington Semester Program, this time as a "distinguished adjunct professor.''

But he lost a few things along the way. In 1968, he lost his right arm and both legs in Vietnam. Last fall, he lost his Senate seat in a campaign that became a symbol of nasty politics.

Cleland, 60, is still livid over a now-infamous TV commercial that Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran against him. It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then attacked Cleland for voting against President Bush's Homeland Security bill. It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.

"That was the biggest lie in America -- to put me up there with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and say I voted against homeland security!" he says, his voice rising in anger.

"I volunteered 35 years ago to go to Vietnam and the guy I was running against got out of going to Vietnam with a trick knee! I was an author of the homeland security bill, for goodness' sake! But I wasn't a rubber stamp for the White House. That right there is the epitome of what's wrong with American politics today!" ... END


Saxby Chambliss, you are a disgraceful coward! The Right loves to talk about "patriotism" and "love of country", but it is those on Left, that usually do most of the fighting and dying. Sax, you are just another piece of slime that has crawled out of the wood work. Bring back the "Big Dog". At least, Clinton had the guts to stand up to you wimps!

:: DM1 7/03/2003 08:14:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo To Sheep:

A part a an article in today's Seattle Times:

Huge influx of troops sought to secure Iraq

By Seattle Times news services.


WASHINGTON — Amid growing indications that some of the attacks against U.S. soldiers in Iraq are organized and coordinated, the chief civilian administrator and Army officers on the ground would like an increase of as many as 50,000 troops in the theater, according to knowledgeable sources.
A plea by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer for the additional troops was discussed at a national-security council meeting several days ago. The White House has indicated it would be reluctant to agree to such a large increase, the equivalent of more than two divisions, the sources said.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was reviewing the request from Bremer, U.S. officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

A source outside the administration but familiar with the deliberations said, "The White House is aware that Bremer wants them," he said. "They're not happy about it. They don't want a formal request because then, politically, there's fallout."

Another source, who was briefed by senior Army officers, said that Bremer and Army generals inside Iraq would like to reinforce the 146,000 U.S. troops inside Iraq with an additional 50,000.

The issue of troop strength to stabilize a postwar Iraq is a sensitive one.

In February, then-Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki was publicly ridiculed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraq policy, for telling Congress that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to guarantee stability. ...end


So there you have it. So much for supporting the troops! Paul Bremer is requesting more troops and the Bush Administration is only concerned about the political fallout. This is what happens when cowards and frauds control the government. Who cares about the troops? No one in the Bush Administration has any relatives over there so who cares? Little Johnie and Sally just got blown up? So what? There's more where thet came from. I say "Bring 'im on!" I'm just a fake cowboy, who only believes in affirmative action when it comes to me. My daddy will get me out of this mess! "All hat and no cattle". And still, you fixate on Bill Clinton's genitals. You are truly sheep being fattened for the slaughter.

:: DM1 7/03/2003 08:04:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to Conservatives:

Now hear this! For all of your screeds against affirmative action, none of you seem to ever stop and ask the question: "Why should black Americans trust a conservative executive branch, a conservative congress, and a conservative judicial branch to treat them fairly without affirmative action?" There is no reason for black folk to believe that white conservatives will treat them fairly. At no point in this country's history have white conservatives ever stood up for equality for black Americans. Now it's chic to quote Martin Luther King, but it was white conservatives who did any and everything to destroy King and oppress black folk. We will oppose you at every turn because you do not have the moral authority, or the history to support your position.

:: DM1 7/01/2003 10:06:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

Well the soldiers are still dying while the Appointed One travels to and fro for campaign funds. He goes to Camp David and he also golfs. You think maybe he can spend at least one weekend in the White House working to clean up his mess. Lies, lies and more lies. When is enough, enough? This is the best the that the country can do? War, a jobless economic recovery, an unemployment rate of more than 6%, and on and on. Who will hold the Bush Administration accountable? Over 200 soldiers have died in Iraq out of 150,000. A very small number you say? How about 500, or 1000, or 2000? What is your limit? The WMD is no where to be found. Saddam is ghost. And Osama is still running around. Can you say inept and incompentent? Don't worry, I have plenty of ammo and will continue to drop my payload every chance I get!

:: DM1 7/01/2003 09:06:00 PM [+] ::
...