:: Da' Militant One's Lair ::

:: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 ::

Aiding and Abetting the Terroists

Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 - Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.

The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency's domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration's most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.

The question of whether the N.S.A. program was used in criminal prosecutions and whether it improperly influenced them raises "fascinating and difficult questions," said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has studied terrorism prosecutions.
"It seems to me that it would be relevant to a person's case," Professor Tobias said. "I would expect the government to say that it is highly sensitive material, but we have legal mechanisms to balance the national security needs with the rights of defendants. I think judges are very conscientious about trying to sort out these issues and balance civil liberties and national security."

While some civil rights advocates, legal experts and members of Congress have said President Bush did not have authority to order eavesdropping by the security agency without warrants, the White House and the Justice Department continued on Tuesday to defend the legality and propriety of the program. Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, declined to comment in Crawford, Tex., when asked about a report in The New York Times that the security agency had tapped into some of the country's main telephone arteries to conduct broader data-mining operations in the search for terrorists.
But Mr. Duffy said: "This is a limited program. This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches."

He added: "The president believes that he has the authority - and he does - under the Constitution to do this limited program. The Congress has been briefed. It is fully in line with the Constitution and also protecting American civil liberties." Disclosure of the N.S.A. program has already caused ripples in the legal system, with a judge resigning in protest from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court last week. The surveillance court, established by Congress in 1978 to grant warrants in terrorism and espionage cases, wants a briefing from the Bush administration on why it bypassed the court and ordered eavesdropping without war
rants.

At the same time, defense lawyers in terrorism cases around the country say they are preparing letters and legal briefs to challenge the N.S.A. program on behalf of their clients, many of them American citizens, and to find out more about how it might have been used. They acknowledge legal hurdles, including the fact that many defendants waived some rights to appeal as part of their plea deals. Government officials, in defending the value of the security agency's surveillance program, have said in interviews that it played a critical part in at least two cases that led to the convictions of Qaeda associates, Iyman Faris of Ohio, who admitted taking part in a failed plot to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge, and Mohammed Junaid Babar of Queens, who was implicated in a failed plot to bomb British targets.

David B. Smith, a lawyer for Mr. Faris, said he planned to file a motion in part to determine whether information about the surveillance program should have been turned over. Lawyers said they were also considering a civil case against the president, saying that Mr. Faris was the target of an illegal wiretap ordered by Mr. Bush. A lawyer for Mr. Babar declined to comment.
Government officials with knowledge of the program have not ruled out the possibility that it was used in other criminal cases, and a number of defense lawyers said in interviews that circumstantial evidence had led them to question whether the security agency identified their clients through wiretaps.

The first challenge is likely to come in Florida, where lawyers for two men charged with Jose Padilla, who is jailed as an enemy combatant, plan to file a motion as early as next week to determine if the N.S.A. program was used to gain incriminating information on their clients and their suspected ties to Al Qaeda. Kenneth Swartz, one of the lawyers in the case, said, "I think they absolutely have an obligation to tell us" whether the agency was wiretapping the defendants. In a Virginia case, Edward B. MacMahon Jr., a lawyer for Ali al-Timimi, a Muslim scholar in Alexandria who is serving a life sentence for inciting his young followers to wage war against the United States overseas, said the government's explanation of how it came to suspect Mr. Timimi of terrorism ties never added up in his view.

F.B.I. agents were at Mr. Timimi's door days after the Sept. 11 attacks to question him about possible links to terrorism, Mr. MacMahon said, yet the government did not obtain a warrant through the foreign intelligence court to eavesdrop on his conversations until many months later. Mr. MacMahon said he was so skeptical about the timing of the investigation that he questioned the Justice Department about whether some sort of unknown wiretap operation had been conducted on the scholar or his young followers, who were tied to what prosecutors described as a "Virginia jihad" cell.

"They told me there was no other surveillance," Mr. MacMahon said. "But the fact is that the case against a lot of these guys just came out of nowhere because they were really nobodies, and it makes you wonder whether they were being tapped." John Zwerling, a lawyer for one of Mr. Timimi's followers, Seifullah Chapman, who is serving a 65-year sentence in federal prison in the case, said he and lawyers for two of the other defendants in the case planned to send a letter to the Justice Department to find out if N.S.A. wiretaps were used against their clients. If the Justice Department declines to give an answer, Mr. Zwerling said, they plan to file a motion in court demanding access to the information.

"We want to know, Did this N.S.A. program make its way into our case, and how was it used?" Mr. Zwerling said. "It may be a difficult trail for us in court, but we're going to go down it as far as we can." Defense lawyers in several other high-profile terrorism prosecutions, including the so-called Portland Seven and Lackawanna Six cases, said they were also planning to file legal challenges or were reviewing their options. "Given what information has come out, with the president admitting that they had avoided the courts, then the question becomes, do you try to learn whether something like that happened in this case?" said Patrick Brown, a Buffalo lawyer in the Lackawanna case. "I would have to talk to my client about whether that's a road we want to go down."

Gerry Spence, who is the lead counsel representing Brandon Mayfield, a Portland lawyer who was arrested in error last year in connection with the Madrid bombings and is now suing the government, said of the security agency program: "We are going to look into that. The calmest word I can use to describe how I feel about this is that I am aghast." Because the program was so highly classified, government officials say, prosecutors who handled terrorism cases apparently did not know of the program's existence. Any information they received, the officials say, was probably carefully shielded to protect the true source.

But defense lawyers say they are eager to find out whether prosecutors - intentionally or not - misled the courts about the origins of their investigations and whether the government may have held on to N.S.A. wiretaps that could point to their clients' innocence. Stanley Cohen, a New York lawyer who represented Patrice Lumumba Ford in the Portland Seven case, said many defendants would face significant obstacles in mounting legal challenges to force the government to reveal whether material obtained through the security agency's program was used in their cases.

"You really could have standing problems" for many of the defendants, Mr. Cohen said.
But some Justice Department prosecutors, speaking on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, said they were concerned that the agency's wiretaps without warrants could create problems for the department in terrorism prosecutions both past and future. "If I'm a defense attorney," one prosecutor said, "the first thing I'm going to say in court is, 'This was an illegal wiretap.' "

:: DM1 12/28/2005 08:22:00 AM [+] ::
...

Another Thought

How much more do some of you need to see before Bush screws everything up even worse? He does not have the intelligence nor the pragmatism to change course . It will get worse before it gets better. The right wing of the repulican party will stop at nothing to retain power and Bush is going to do all he can to make it happen.

:: DM1 12/17/2005 09:14:00 AM [+] ::
...

Maybe the Tide is Turning

In response Bush's attics as M"Master of the Universe" the democrats and four brave republicans voted against cloture on extention of several provisions of the Patriot Act. Read all about it.

Dems block passage of Patriot Act in Senate December 17, 2005

BY DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON -- In a stinging defeat for President Bush, Senate Democrats blocked passage Friday of a new Patriot Act to combat terrorism at home, depicting the measure as a threat to the constitutional liberties of innocent Americans. Republicans spurned calls for a short-term measure to prevent the year-end expiration of law enforcement powers enacted after Sept. 11.
''The president will not sign such an extension,'' said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and lawmakers on each side of the issue blamed the other for congressional gridlock.
The Senate voted 52-47 to advance a House-passed bill to a final vote, eight short of the 60 needed to overcome the filibuster backed by nearly all Senate Democrats and a handful of the 45 Republicans.

''We can come together to give the government the tools it needs to fight terrorism and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens,'' said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), arguing that provisions permitting government access to confidential personal data lacked safeguards to protect the innocent. ''We need to be more vigilant,'' agreed Sen. John Sununu, a Republican from New Hampshire. Some provisions continue Frist likened the bill's opponents to those who ''have called for a retreat and defeat strategy in Iraq. That's the wrong strategy in Iraq. It is the wrong strategy here at home.'' The practical implications of an expiration of the original law remained somewhat clouded. James Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said law enforcement agencies could continue using Patriot Act provisions against all known terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Zarqawi group in Iraq. He said even newly discovered members would be subject to Patriot Act investigative tools. The events on the Senate floor underscored the extent of political change since 2001. Then, Feingold cast the only vote against the original Patriot Act, which was designed to give those tracking terrorists some of the authority that had been available only in intelligence investigations.

Much of the controversy involved powers granted to law enforcement agencies to gain access to a wealth of personal data, including library and medical records, in secret, as part of investigations into suspected terrorist activity. The bill also includes a four-year extension of the government's ability to conduct roving wiretaps -- which may involve multiple phones -- and continues the authority to wiretap ''lone wolf'' terrorists who may operate on their own.
Access to various personal records is obtained by order of a secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

AP

:: DM1 12/17/2005 09:08:00 AM [+] ::
...

Are The Terrorists Winning?

After hearing that "C+ Augustus" allowed intelligence agencies to secretly spy on American citizens I thought about Osama and why he hasn't attacked us since 9/11. I started to write a blog, but found this analysis on www.uzzflash.com this morning. It says it all.


The Terrorists Don't Need to Destroy Democracy. Bush is Doing Their Work for The
December 17, 2005

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Bush's war on terrorism is an utter failure. In every respect, terrorism is growing, including in Iraq. And Bush is giving them the tools to commit another series of hijackings by letting them carry box cutters and knives on planes again. How transparent a move is that? He is practically inviting them to hijack another airplane so that he can blame the Democrats for letting it happen, when it is Bush and Cheney that are using terrorism, practically letting it happen, in order to consolidate their political power. Now we learn that Bush has illegally allowed spying on Americans -- and that the Pentagon is spying on Anti-War Protestors. It's ironic that the Berlin Wall fell when Bush is trying to create another iron curtain. Only we're on the Soviet side of it now. The terrorists -- including Osama who Bush swore to catch but in his usual inept performance failed to do so -- are justing sitting back and watching Bush do their work for them: destroying democracy.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

:: DM1 12/17/2005 08:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

Enough Is Enough

Enough is enough!. What the f*ck is going on? Who are those a**holes masquerading as republicans? Haskert, Delay, Hunter, Frist, Kyl, Cornin, and their spawn are f*cking this country up big time. You idiots that voted in these a*ssholes and that moron Bush have blood on your hands. Over 18,000 casualties and counting. For what? A fool's paradise? You all are an embarassment not only to the country, but to humanity. If you all are true christians then there truly is no God.

:: DM1 11/19/2005 08:16:00 AM [+] ::
...

A Memo I wrote to that Idiot Pat Roberts in June 2003:

Memo to Pat Roberts:

What a poor excuse for a senator. What are you hiding? Bush told a lie to the American People when he declared in his State of the Union Address that Iraq had received uranium from Niger. If being investigated for lying to the American People is good enough for Bill Clinton, then it's good enough for Bush. Bush didn't lie under oath? That's your defense? Basically what you are saying is that it is perfectly alright to lie to the American People as long as you don't do it under oath. How about this if Bush is such an honest man, put him under oath and have him declare that all of his statements about Iraq and WMD were true. I doubt that he would take the offer. Pat Roberts you should immediately resign as you don't possess loyalty to the people you serve. Your loyalty is with Bush and you more interested in protecting him then the American People. What an utter disgrace!

:: DM1 6/12/2003 07:16:19 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:20:00 AM [+] ::
...

Blog from June 2003:


Thursday, June 05, 2003 ::

Memo to the Sheep:

Let me get this straight Bill Clinton lies about oral sex and is impeached. The Dauphin lies about wars, the economy, and who knows what else and he is exalted. What is wrong with the picture? Clinton lied under oath? Well he was roundly condemned and suffered legal and political consequences. And while Clinton has the morals of a cat he was a tireless worker for the country and its citizens. I didn't vote for Clinton in '92 or '96, but a review of his entire record suggests that the continued criticism by mainly the Right is dubious at best. If those on the Right are truly sincere in their beliefs, they will hold the current occupant of the White House to the same high standards of honesty, integrity, and trust. Accountability was the catch word for Clinton; however, nothing it seems is Bush's fault. Now it really doesn't matter in the scheme of things whether the Right ever holds Bush accountable, but by not living up to the standards previously established, they bear partial responsibility for the fate of the nation and its people. History will be the judge and history as we all know can be a cruel and brutal mistress. How many soldiers' deaths in Iraq are acceptable? They will continue to die and for what? Two empty trailers? I sure hope that more is found not only for the credibility of the war, but the credibility of the nation.
:: DM1 6/05/2003 07:58:21 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:18:00 AM [+] ::
...

A blog I wrote in May 2003:

:: Saturday, May 17, 2003 ::

Memo to "Fox and Friends":

Since you are asking if the Dems are sincere in supporting the Dauphin, why don't you ask if the publicity stunt of flying to the aircraft carrier with real heroes was sincere. In fact why don't you hold the Appointed one to the same high standards as Bill Clinton. When Clinton lied about sex, how many Americans died? When the fraud lied about WMD in Iraq, how many Americans and Iraqis died? Ask about his lack of a domestic policy. Put his entire record up against Clinton. How many jobs were generated while Clinton was president? What about the fraud? If the so-called job stimulus tax cut is so great will generate 1.4 million jobs, what about the other 600,000+ that have been lost under his mismanagment? Monica never gave Clinton what you folks have been giving the fraud. Get up off your knees and do some journalism for a change.

:: DM1 5/17/2003 08:44:35 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:17:00 AM [+] ::
...

I've been reposting blogs I wrote years ago to show that all the damage that Bush has done was anticipated by some of us well before his actions came to light. Here is another one:

: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 ::

Memo to The Washington Times:

I see that the paper is back to normal. After seeing commentaries a few week ago by Paul Craig Roberts and others questioning the coming war in Iraq, I see that the "useful idiots" are now telling us to shutup, support the war, take the economic hit and "kiss" Bush's ring. Your paper gives great license to those calling peace protesters "anti-American". Well, reading the nonsense that the "useful idiots" spout couldn't be more "anti-American". Why didn't Bush include the coming war in his budget. The excuse that we are not at war yet is illogical. Bush has an idea of how much the cost of the war will be, but then informing the public would prove the lie that is his budget. How much longer will Bush be allowed to drag down this nation both domestically and abroad. Well, your Paper has hitched its wagon to this Administration and its thoroughly incompetent crew. Good luck explaining lunacy and perfidy that is this M.O. of this sad lot. Your words will not sway opinion and history will be the judge. I spent much of 2001 explaining to folks why Bill Clinton's legacy was secure, two words: George Bush. If affirmative action is unbecoming of a 17-year old black kid from chicago, it is certainly unbecoming of a gadfly with no business being President.

:: DM1 2/19/2003 08:52:25 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:13:00 AM [+] ::
...

A Memo I wrote to Dick Gephardt more than three years:

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 10/16/2002 07:34:32 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:08:00 AM [+] ::
...

A blog I wrote before the war:

Friday, September 27, 2002 ::

First let me say that George Bush is not as dumb as folks would believe, but he is also not as smart as he thinks he is. The speech at the U.N. was brilliant because he put together a coherent argument on why Iraq is a problem. He also boxed himself in a corner from which he is now trying to escape. War with Iraq serves many useful purposes for Bush and republicans.
:: DM1 9/27/2002 11:29:01 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:04:00 AM [+] ::
...

This is a re-repost from four years ago:

:: Friday, August 23, 2002 ::

Blast From the Past:

October 2001 response to some Knucklehead from the Washington Times on "Clinton-Hating". It is very disgraceful the way you and other "Clinton Haters" can not let it go. My memory is not as short as your integrity. As I remember things, every time Clinton engaged in any retaliation or attack against terrorists or dictators, people like you said that he was trying to divert attention from his scandals. So much for unity and standing behind your president.

Let's go back to Kosovo. Here is an excerpt from an article dated 4/29/99:"

WASHINGTON -- In a sharp challenge to President Clinton, the House voted Wednesday to bar the President from sending ground troops to Yugoslavia without Congressional approval and then on a tie vote refused to support NATO air strikes against Serbia. The votes came during a day of heated and sometimes anguished speeches that showcased deep divisions in Congress over the escalating conflict in the Balkans. The all-day session marked the first formal Congressional debate since NATO began its bombing campaign on March 24 to drive the forces of the Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, out of Kosovo. The Senate had voted on March 23 to approve the air strikes. The House voted 249 to 180 to require the President to seek Congressional approval for ground forces. Forty-five Democrats and an independent joined 203 Republicans to support the measure. Sixteen Republicans and 164 Democrats opposed the bill. But the surprise came when the House finished its deliberations this evening by failing to pass a Democratic resolution intended to give symbolic support to the President's air campaign. The measure failed in a tie vote of 213 to 213 even though Speaker J. Dennis Hastert threw his support behind it. In all, 31 Republicans broke with their party to back the air campaign and 26 Democrats voted against it.

"Wait there's more. How about May 1999:

WASHINGTON (May 2, 1999 5:34 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - President Clinton welcomed Yugoslavia's dramatic release Sunday of three U.S. soldiers, but his administration rebuffed a request for a pause in the airstrikes and for a meeting between Slobodan Milosevic and the president until the Serb leader agrees to all NATO demands. "This gesture ... of goodwill cannot obliterate or overcome the stench of evil and death that has been inflicted in those killing fields in Kosovo," Defense Secretary William Cohen said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Cohen and other U.S. officials sounded a hardline, suggesting Milosevic had simply engaged in a "PR stunt" in releasing the American prisoners. But the administration was coming under pressure from a variety of sources to seek a diplomatic end to the crisis - from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who arranged the soldiers' release, to two top Republican leaders in Congress. "As Jesse Jackson would say, 'Give peace a chance here,"' Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said on CNN's "Late Edition." "There seems to be some momentum. There's seems to be an opportunity. We should seize this moment." House Majority Whip Tom Delay, R-Texas, told "Fox News Sunday" that Clinton should meet Milosevic to negotiate an end to "this failed policy of bombing for diplomacy."

How about this one:

In Washington, some congressmen are calling for an immediate withdrawal of American forces from the Balkans. "The U.S. involvement should end now. We never should have been involved in the first place," a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told CNS.Paul and 17 other Members of Congress – two Democrats and fifteen Republicans – are suing President Clinton in federal court for allegedly violating the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act by ordering air strikes in Yugoslavia.House Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay was also blunt on the bombing, as he addressed the House today. " I don't think we should be bombing in the Balkans. I don't think the present military presence should be maintained," said DeLay. DeLay also reiterated his support for a measure introduced by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) calling for the withdrawal of "any U.S. forces presently engaged in the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia."

Here's another one:

WASHINGTON, May 6 (IPS) - Despite six weeks of non-stop NATO bombing operations against Yugoslavia, the US Congress has been unable to form any consensus either for or against Washington's biggest military engagement since the 1991 Gulf War. For the administration and the Atlantic alliance, the lack of clear Congressional support for the campaign was ominous, given the failure so far to achieve any of their war aims on the ground and the legendary impatience of the US public. Votes taken in both the Senate and the House of Representatives - as well as ad hoc diplomatic efforts over the past week - exposed deep divisions among both Democrats and Republicans over the war and the way it was being fought. ''Not only can we (Congress) not speak with one voice on Kosovo,'' said one aide to a key Democratic Senator. ' 'We can't even speak with three or four or five. People are all over the map on this.'' Those divisions, both ideological and partisan, reflected differences between interventionists and anti-interventionists, isolationists and internationalists, and realists and idealists in both parties. They also reflected frustrations by many Republicans over their failure to dent the popularity of President Bill Clinton. For example, right-wing Republicans who back the military at any cost - particularly when US troops are engaged in combat - have done the most to undermine support for the NATO campaign, or ''Clinton's War,'' as they refer to it. Led by Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the driving force behind last year's unsuccessful impeachment effort against Clinton, these forces believed that the Kosovo intervention would end in disaster and seal the president's disgrace. Their position infuriated both the Democrats and much of the Republican foreign-policy establishment. The lack of support for the war defied the ''rally-'round-the-flag'' impulse which normally sweeps Congress once US troops are committed to action. The fact, however, that until Wednesday, when two Apache helicopter pilots were killed in a training mission in Albania, no US soldiers had died in the conflict appears to have tempered that reflex. Congressional incoherence on Kosovo became clear last week when the House cast three key votes on US strategy. The first - which requires Clinton to seek prior Congressional approval before committing ground forces to Kosovo - passed 249-180, with 45 Democrats joining the vast majority of Republicans on the vote. That result, which affirmed the constitutional role of Congress in war-making, was expected. But then, in a stunning blow to Clinton's policy, the House voted 213-213 to reject a resolution authorising US involvement in the current NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia. In that vote, 26 Democrats joined some 190 Republicans to defeat the measure, which was virtually identical to one passed by the Republican-led Senate five weeks before. While House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the titular leader of the Republicans, voted for the measure, DeLay led the opposition, actively lobbying members on the floor. ''The extreme right wing of the Republican party remains in control of that party,'' commented an angry and amazed Minority Leader Dick Gephardt after the vote. But then, having just voted against the air war, the House rejected a third resolution - to withdraw all US military forces from the war within 30 days - 139-209, with a majority of Republicans, however, voting to pull out. In yet another reversal, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee the following day more than doubled a six- billion-dollar request by Clinton to fund US participation in the air war and humanitarian relief for Kosovar refugees. That bill, which is now worth 12.9 billion dollars, is expected to pass this week. ''Congress Set to Provide Money, But No Guidance, for Kosovo Mission,'' is the way the authoritative 'Congressional Weekly' headlined the votes, although some editorial writers and many Democrats were considerably harsher in assessing the House's performance. The incoherence, especially among Republicans, has not been confined to the House. Earlier this week, the leadership of both parties used procedural manoeuvres to prevent a vote on a resolution that would authorise Clinton to use ''all necessary force'' to achieve US and NATO's war aims in Yugoslavia. The resolution was sponsored by Republican Senator and presidential aspirant John McCain and two prominent foreign-policy Democrats, all of whom had emerged as among the war's foremost defenders since the air campaign began Mar 24. The idea behind the resolution was to empower Clinton to move towards a ground war in Yugoslavia without having to seek further authority from Congress. Fearing the resolution's defeat, the administration worked actively to get it off the agenda. But the debate surrounding the resolution highlighted deep ideological and partisan differences within the Senate. Like his right-wing colleagues in the House, for example, Majority Leader Trent Lott repeatedly referred to the NATO operation as ''Clinton's war.'' And, echoing anti-war Democrats of a previous generation, many Republicans said the proposal amounted to a ''Gulf of Tonkin'' resolution which in 1964 gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to carry out the disastrous Vietnam War. In an ironic reversal, many Democrats, including some who participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement, argued that Washington's and NATO's credibility was at stake in Kosovo and withholding military options at this point would only undermine that credibility and encourage Serbia to resist. That reversal highlighted a trend within both parties which has become increasingly pronounced since the end of the Cold War. Democrats, the ''doves'' accused of isolationism for their opposition to the Vietnam War, have become interventionist ''hawks'' in the post-Cold War era. Republicans, the hawks of the Cold War, on the other hand, have become increasingly opposed to Washington's overseas entanglements, even as they support big increases in US military spending.


So as you can see Clinton was opposed by the republican congress at almost every turn. The likes of Tom Delay and Trent Lott did as much to further the cause of those who want to destroy America by thwarting Clinton at almost every turn. Don't worry, I will send you more examples concerning Clinton's fight on terrorism. The feckless nature of the republican congress concerning Kosovo is still vivid for me so I used it as my first argument. So don't tell me what Clinton would have done. Instead tell me about the unpatriotic nature of the republican congress in supporting the president when he needed them to rally around him and the country! I understand that this is impossible for people like you. Facts be damned!
:: DM1 8/23/2002 12:25:47 PM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:52:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this letter to the editor of the Washington Times more than three years ago:

:: DM1 7/18/2002 03:55:38 AM [+] :: ...

Memo to The Washington Times:

I really wonder about the folks that sit on the editorial board. Why don't you rename the paper "The Republican Conservative Times" If there was ever an "American Taliban" it is surely your paper. Lest we forget that Bush lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes. Your paper crucified Clinton, not for winning, but for not getting at least 50% of the vote. Not only did Bush not get at least 50% of the vote he came in second with respect to all votes counted. When evidence came out in the many "scandals" surrounding Clinton, your paper printed them all, you even printed rape allegations on your front page about him. Your "jihad" against Clinton is about as pathetic as your lack of critical analysis of the 2000 Election. Remember that prior to 9/11 Bush was hovering at 50% in the polls. To say that the voters put the 2000 election behind them prior to 9/11 shows the disconnect that the "elites" in your paper have with most of America. Now unlike the total lack of support that most republicans gave Cinton, the democrats are supporting Bush almost totally. But beware, his support is based on the attack of 9/11 and the need to exact justice, revenge, or whatever you want to call it. His domestic policies are still wrongheaded and not well thought out. His foreign policy team other than Colin Powell, who he failed to listen to prior to 9/11, is failing him. His unilateralist polcies in the first six months of the 2001 created unnecessary problems when Bush had to go back to the same world community after 9/11 for support. No, our support of Bush is an extension of our support for the ideals and freedoms of our country. Now if folks such as yourself had shown Clinton the same type of support maybe we would not be dealing with the bitterness and hatred that exists against us today. Also, folks in your paper are going out of their way to blame Clinton for 9/11. Well Bush had been president for 8 months when this happened. A report outlining terrorist threats to the US had been presented to him in the Spring of 2001. He did nothing to address the concerns raised until after the 9/11 attack. Your paper preaches personal accountability and responsibility. It would be a good start for you to practice what you preach.

:: DM1 7/18/2002 03:52:37 AM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:47:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this more than three years ago:

:: DM1 7/16/2002 10:41:31 PM [+] :: ...

I see that blood is in the water. King George is feeling the heat. To all concerned; "Beware of your heads my friends!" Enemies of the State! The conservatives are not about to roll over. Let's hope that all of you have the stomach for the coming battle .

:: DM1 7/16/2002 10:38:53 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:44:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this more than three years ago:

:: Monday, July 01, 2002 ::

It's time for republicans to stand up an say, "The emperor has no clothes!" Subtract 9/11 from the ledger and the Bush Adminstration's record is dubious at best. Like many companies with the inability to truly be profitable, the Bush team has resorted to leveraging 9/11 to cover it's "losses". Folks are always talking about selecting the "best qualified". Well that maxim sure was buried by the results of the 2000 election. What has resulted is what you get when someone who is appointed to the presidency is wholly unqualified. One last thing with all of the issues facing Bush and the U.S. how did Bush find time to read "BIAS" by Bernie Goldberg? I would have been more reassured if he had been reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". Just a few observations from a disgusted REP!

:: DM1 7/01/2002 01:06:11 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:42:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this more than two years ago:

:: Saturday, June 21, 2003 ::

Memo to Sheep:

These are the words of leading conservative republicans in the matter of presidential lies and misleading statements

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois), “There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) “The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders…We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come…laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.”

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) “It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.”

Steve Buyer (R- Indiana) “I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.”

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator) “The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.”

Of course, the president that they were speaking of was Bill Clinton. The president that their words apply to is George Bush. Lying about sex: Number of casualties - 0. Lying about war: 190+ killed, hundreds wounded and counting. Who are you going to believe Bush, or your own lying eyes?

:: DM1 6/21/2003 01:41:35 PM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:35:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote the following blog more than two years ago:

Saturday, June 14, 2003 ::

Memo to Sheep:

This is an except of a news report today From Jonathan Landay of Knight-Ridder:"A senior CIA official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the intelligence agency informed the White House on March 9, 2002 -- 10 months before Bush's nationally televised speech -- that an agency source who had traveled to Niger could not confirm European intelligence reports that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from the West African country.Despite the CIA's misgivings, Bush said in his State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa."Three senior administration officials said Vice President Dick Cheney and some officials on the National Security Council staff and at the Pentagon ignored the CIA's reservations and argued that the president and others should include the allegation in their case against Saddam." end

Alright Sports Fans, can you say "smoking gun!". The lies are getting heavier and heavier still. They are lying to your face and getting your young warriors killed. When is enough, enough? They are spending you into debt that your grand children can't repay. The fate of the country is your responsibility. Some of us are sounding the alarm, and yet, you do not hear. Still the chickens are coming home to roost and roost they shall with or without you!
:: DM1 6/14/2003 10:43:55 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:33:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Fall of the Hammer

Texas Court Issues Warrant for DeLay

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer Wed Oct 19, 2:27 PM ET
AUSTIN, Texas - A Texas court on Wednesday issued a warrant for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay' s arrest, and set an initial $10,000 bail as a routine step before his first court appearance on conspiracy and state money laundering charges.

Travis County court officials said DeLay was ordered to appear at the Fort Bend County, Texas, jail for booking, where he'd likely be fingerprinted and photographed. DeLay's lawyers had hoped to avoid such a spectacle.
The warrant, known as a capias, is "a matter of routine and bond will be posted," DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said.
The lawyer declined to say when DeLay would surrender to authorities but said the lawmaker would make his first court appearance Friday morning.
The charges against the Texas Republican stem from allegations that a DeLay-founded Texas political committee funneled corporate money into state GOP legislative races through the National Republican Party.

:: DM1 10/19/2005 05:34:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Liar

Not Only Did Bush Know - But He Lied About It To The Press
Originally published Oct 19, 2005

The Nation takes the Daily News story and kicks it up a notch:

Wait a minute! Two years ago, the White House--via McClellan--definitively declared that Rove was not "involved" in the CIA leak. But if Bush at some point upbraided his guru about the leak that means (a) Bush knew that Rove was involved and (b) Bush countenanced McClellan's dissemination of a false cover story. This is evidence that Bush was a party to the attempted White House cover-up and that Bush might have directly lied about the issue. On September 30, 2003 [link added], he was questioned by reporters about the leak investigation. Here's an excerpt:

Q: Yesterday we were told that Rove had no role in it--
The President: Yes.
Q: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him?
The President: Listen, I know of nobody-- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody leaked classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
Quite possibly, we've found Bush's "I did not have sex with that woman" moment.The "appropriate action" - again - apparently is to promote them to deputy chief of staff and sweep your knowledge of it under the carpet.
Posted at 11:22 AM

:: DM1 10/19/2005 05:31:00 PM [+] ::
...

Weary of the Fight

Sorry folks, I have grown weary of the fight. The chickens are roosting and indictments are pending. None of this is a surprise to me. What does surprise me is that some of the sheep are still heading to the slaughter. Bush never gave a f-ck about you and he and his henchmen are proving it everyday. You voted for a total incompetent that could not lead his way out of a paperbag. Remember that after 9/11 Bush had a 90% approval rating. HE squandered his support and YOU enabled him by being petty, partisan and STUPID with an emphasis on STUPID. You need to look at the demographics that Bush and his henchmen go after. The mark is usually a white christian that is not well educated. There is a reason for this. You can be manipulated very easily. Your continued support of this charlatan is proof of this fact. You deserve better yet you settle for B.S. Well the future is out of your hands and that's the way it should be because you have forfeited your right to be part of the solution.

:: DM1 10/19/2005 05:10:00 PM [+] ::
...

From the Feelings are Mutual Category, "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, October 13, 2005; 3:09 PM

In what may turn out to be one of the biggest free-falls in the history of presidential polling, President Bush's job-approval rating among African Americans has dropped to 2 percent, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

The drop among blacks drove Bush's overall job approval ratings to an all-time low of 39 percent in this poll. By comparison, 45 percent of whites and 36 percent of Hispanics approve of the job Bush is doing.

A few months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found Bush's approval rating among blacks at 51 percent. As recently as six months ago, it was at 19 percent.

But Bush's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina -- seen by many blacks as evidence that he didn't care about them (see my September 13 column ) -- may have brought support for the president in the African American community down to nearly negligible levels.

Tim Russert called attention to this startling statistic on the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams yesterday: "Brian, listen to this," he said. "Only 2 percent -- 2 percent! -- of African-Americans approve of George Bush's handling of the presidency -- the lowest we have ever seen in that particular measure."

So this morning, I called Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, to get a better sense of the significance of the results.

"African Americans were not supporters, but I don't think that they outright detested him -- until now," Hart said. "The actions in and around Katrina persuaded African Americans that this was a president who was totally insensitive to their concerns and their needs."

Hart said he has never seen such a dramatic drop in presidential approval ratings, within any subgroup.

This latest poll included 807 people nationwide, and only 89 blacks. As a result, there is a considerable margin or error -- and the findings should not be considered definitive until or unless they are validated by other polls.

David Bositis, a senior political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which tracks African American public opinion, told me this morning that it's clear that Bush's job approval among blacks "has taken a hit from both the ongoing things in Iraq and what happened with Katrina."

But down to 2 percent? "I doubt that it's actually 2," he said.

"But would I be surprised if it's 10 or 12? No." And 10, he said, is typically "about as low as you can go" when it comes to approval ratings.

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, released September 13, about two weeks after Katrina hit, found Bush's job approval among blacks at 14 percent, compared to 42 percent among the general population. Exit polls showed that 11 percent of black voters voted for Bush in November 2004.

[Late Update: The Pew Research Center is just out with its latest poll, which has a larger sample, and it finds Bush's approval rating among blacks at 12 percent, down only slightly from 14 in July. Here are those results .]

:: DM1 10/14/2005 08:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

Tom Delay

I know that some of you are wondering what my take is on that crook Tom Delay. See that's the problem with many white folks, as long as the criminal is black they keep their eyes on the prize, but if it' s a white person it takes a while for them to focus on white criminaility. Delay has always been a crook, but the arrogance of power has pushed in into the void.

:: DM1 10/09/2005 02:29:00 PM [+] ::
...

A Thought on That Fat A$$ Bill Bennett


Here is the exchange between Bennett and the caller that got him to acknowledge what he believes:

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.


Notice how when talking about abortion and its affect on Social Security Bennett qualifies his statement "assuming they're all productive citizens." Now notice when he's talking about the abortion of black babies and the crime rate, he make no statement "assuming they're all criminals." Why because his mind he has already laid down the criteria when he spoke about abortion and Social Security. "Assuming they're all criminals" is the only point that is left out of his linking of the abortion of black babies and crime because that is essence what he already believes. He also says that "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down." As far as I know there has never been a black baby who has committed a crime unless the crime that they committed is being born. To some white folks like Bennett being born black is a crime because when this black baby grows up his genetic pre-disposition for crime mainfests itself. I wonder if it truly is a black baby who is genetically criminal that Bennett should be worried about? Maybe that black baby has no genetic pre-disposition at all to commit crime. Maybe after that black baby is brought up into a world of sex, drugs, crime and violence he becomes a product of his environment. Now that Bennett has come up with the solution for the crime rate he can explain the criminal behaviour of Delay, Frist, Bush, Cheney and I doubt its because their mothers are black!

:: DM1 10/09/2005 07:28:00 AM [+] ::
...

More Sobering News:


Retired general: Iraq invasion was ‘strategic disaster'
By EVAN LEHMANN, Sun Washington Bureau



WASHINGTON -- The invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” a retired Army general said yesterday, strengthening an effort in Congress to force an American withdrawal beginning next year.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.

The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells.

“The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history,” said Odom, now a scholar with the Hudson Institute.

Homeward Bound, a bipartisan resolution with 60 House co-sponsors, including Lowell Rep. Marty Meehan, requests President Bush to announce plans for a draw-down by December, and begin withdrawing troops by October 2006.

The measure has not been voted on, nor has the House Republican leadership scheduled hearings. But supporters were encouraged yesterday, pointing to growing support among moderate conservatives and the public's rising dissatisfaction with the war.

Meehan, one of the first to propose a tiered exit strategy in January, when few of his Democratic colleagues dared wade into the controversial debate, pointed to “enormous progress.”

“Talking about this issue, having hearings on this issue, getting more Americans to focus on it will result in a change of policy,” Meehan told The Sun. “The generals and commanders on the field in Iraq overwhelmingly are saying we need less in terms of occupation and more Iraqis up front, and that's the only strategy I think that will result in getting American troops back home.”

:: DM1 10/01/2005 12:32:00 AM [+] ::
...

In Case You Aren't Paying Attention:

Uzbeks Stop Working With U.S. Against Terrorism

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 30, 2005; A14



After cutting off U.S. access to a key military base, Uzbekistan has also quietly terminated cooperation with Washington on counterterrorism, a move that could affect both countries' ability to deal with al Qaeda and its allies in Central Asia and neighboring Afghanistan, U.S. officials said.

The government of President Islam Karimov, one of the most authoritarian to emerge from the collapse of the Soviet Union, has made a broader strategic decision to move away from the 2002 agreement made with President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and is cooling relations with Europe as well, the officials said.

The move follows tough criticism from Washington and the European Union over Uzbekistan's crackdown on protests in May in Andijan province, where human rights and opposition groups say hundreds died. Uzbekistan has charged that terrorists initiated the violence.

As tensions deepen, Karimov is shifting his strategic alliance toward Russia and China, the officials said. In July, Tashkent banned U.S. troops and warplanes from the Karshi-Khanabad air base, which was used for counterterrorism, military and humanitarian missions.

Because of the internal Uzbek crackdown, the European Union laid the groundwork yesterday for a vote expected on Monday to impose new sanctions on Uzbekistan for failing to allow an independent international inquiry of the Andijan incidents. The measures include an embargo on arms and any equipment that could be used for internal repression, and visa restrictions for any Uzbek official linked to the violence, European diplomats said.

Senior officials from the State Department, the Pentagon and the National Security Council held three hours of talks with Karimov on Tuesday to express U.S. concern about Uzbek human rights violations and the deterioration in relations between the two countries.

"We do want to cooperate, but it has to be across the board, not just on counterterrorism and security but also to support democratic and market reforms," Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said yesterday in a telephone interview from Kazakhstan. He called the recent Uzbek decision to cut back on counterterrorism cooperation "very disappointing."

A spokesman from the Uzbek Embassy in Washington said his nation is still cooperating with the United States but would not comment further.

The E.U. has been pressuring Washington to impose similar sanctions, but the Bush administration wants to give Karimov one last chance to renew cooperation. "The United States is going to look very closely at whether Karimov responds to our message, and, if not, we will draw conclusions," Fried said. "We're not talking about six months. My purpose was not to drag out the process."

The Bush administration has concluded that Karimov fears democracy more than terrorism, officials said. The biggest threat to his government is the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which a State Department report says has been involved in attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan and has plotted attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Central Asia. Aligned with al Qaeda, it seeks to overthrow Karimov and create an Islamic government, the report says.

The Uzbek issue is gaining more attention on Capitol Hill. Reps. William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.) and Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.) held a news conference yesterday to urge the White House to end all Pentagon payments to Tashkent and to go to the United Nations to bring the Uzbek leader to justice.

Karimov "inflicts immeasurable pain and misery on his own people and then evicts us from a strategic military facility -- and the Pentagon's idea of a penalty is the gift of millions of U.S. tax dollars," Delahunt said. The Pentagon recently agreed to pay $23 million for past use of the K-2 air base.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

:: DM1 10/01/2005 12:28:00 AM [+] ::
...

How's Goes It In Iraq?

Well Lemmings you say you support the war and the President. Let's go to the video tape:

Decline in Iraqi Troops' Readiness CitedGenerals Tell Lawmakers They Cannot Predict When U.S. Forces Can Withdraw

By Josh White and Bradley GrahamWashington Post Staff WritersFriday, September 30, 2005; A12

The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday, adding that the security situation in Iraq is too uncertain to predict large-scale American troop withdrawals anytime soon.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said there are fewer Iraqi battalions at "Level 1" readiness than there were a few months ago. Although Casey said the number of troops and overall readiness of Iraqi security forces have steadily increased in recent months, and that there has not been a "step backwards," both Republican and Democratic senators expressed deep concern that the United States is not making enough progress against a resilient insurgency.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his commanders yesterday publicly hedged their forecasts of U.S. involvement in Iraq, leaving it unclear when troops will be able to come home or how long it will take before Iraqi security forces can defend their homeland. The officials also gave somber forecasts of significant insurgent attacks in the coming weeks as Iraq faces important political milestones.

Yesterday in Iraq, three suicide attackers set off a series of car bombs in a northern, mainly Shiite town, killing at least 40 people and wounding many more. In western Iraq, a roadside bomb killed five U.S. soldiers. Sunni insurgents have said they want to disrupt the constitutional referendum next month and the elections set for December.

On Capitol Hill, Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, who leads the U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iraqi forces are growing steadily but that it could be some time before they can take over large portions of the country. The readiness of Iraqi forces is a key element of the U.S. war strategy to gradually reduce American troops as Iraqi troops are able to effectively replace them.

"Over the past 18 months, we have built enough Iraqi capacity where we can begin talking seriously about transitioning this counterinsurgency mission to them," Casey said. Military figures show that there are about three dozen army and special police battalions rated at Level 2 or above, meaning they are taking the lead in combat as long as they have support from coalition forces.

Officials did not say specifically why two battalions are no longer rated at Level 1 and thus unable to operate on their own. They said generally readiness ratings can change for numerous reasons, such as if a commander resigns, or if more training is needed. Casey also said that the "Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time."
In a House Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday afternoon, Rumsfeld and the commanders were pressed for specifics about when troops might withdraw. But the answers were vague, at least the ones provided in public, before members moved into a classified briefing.

"I can tell you, Congressman, it's all going to be conditions-based," Casey said in answering Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), who had sought a "reasonable time frame" for Iraqi troops to take over security duties. "It's not going to be like throwing a switch where all of a sudden, one day, the Iraqis are in charge."

Senators bristled at the disclosure that only one of Iraq's 86 army battalions is ready to fight on its own, including rare blunt criticism from Republicans. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he believes the United States has not had enough troops to fend off insurgents permanently. McCain also chastised Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, who retires as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff today, for being overly optimistic because "things have not gone as we had planned or expected nor as we were told by you, General Myers."

Myers replied: "I don't think this committee or the American public has ever heard me say that things are going very well in Iraq. This is a hard struggle." Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she was discouraged by the lack of readiness by the Iraqi security force. She said that it "contributes to a loss of public confidence in how the war is going," and that "it doesn't feel like progress when we hear today that we have only one Iraqi battalion that is fully capable."

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said he doubts that U.S. commanders have a clear handle on the nature of the insurgency and noted that the war has been more difficult than he expected.
Defense officials and military commanders have frequently sounded upbeat since the January elections, at times predicting that significant numbers of U.S. troops might return home by next spring and declaring that the insurgency was waning. As attacks have intensified recently and as the war has become less popular in the United States, that optimism has slipped. Lawmakers have recently expressed concerns about the growing potential for civil war in Iraq.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the committee, said he believes that if Iraqis do not join together by the end of the year to reach a political solution that is agreeable to the minority Sunnis, the United States should consider a timetable for withdrawal. Levin said an indefinite U.S. presence could hinder Iraqi progress.

"That's not setting a date for departure at this time," he said. "That's simply conveying clearly and forcefully to the Iraqis that the presence of our forces in Iraq is not unlimited."
Asked whether the insurgency has worsened, Casey said it has not expanded geographically or numerically, "to the extent we can know that." But he noted that current "levels of violence are above norms," exceeding 500 attacks a week.

"I'll tell you that levels of violence are a lagging indicator of success," he added. "And what's really important is the fact that the Iraqis are at 98 percent registered to participate in the referendum, in the elections."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

__________________________________________________________________

So there you have it. How much incompetence are you going to tolerate? You are even more disgraceful then because if this was a democrat screwing up like this, you would have demanded that impeachment proceedings commence. You say that you support the troops and that dissent ruins morale. Well me and my buddies all went into the service in the early 1980s and I never gave much thought to what civilians said about us, specially men old enough to serve. Why should I care about the opinion of someone

:: DM1 9/30/2005 11:34:00 PM [+] ::
...

The following comment was emailed by MostHigh:

This has been going on for quite sometime now. Bush has been appointing personnel to his administration that are charismatic and the public eats it up. The political propaganda machine in this country is very effective in how it accomplishes its agenda. Question, who's to take responsibilty for the condition of the union when the Bush administration is finished? What can you really hold Bush accountable for when his term is up? What are you going to do, say you can't run for office anymore. He's made his impact (negative of course), he's got his money. George Bush doesn't care about black people, nah, George Bush doesn't care about anyone that can't effectively push his agenda. --Posted by MostHigh to Da' Militant One's Lair at 9/26/2005 11:10:40 AM

How about that, a very good point. What to do, what to do? Any suggestions out there?

:: DM1 9/29/2005 02:39:00 PM [+] ::
...

More on that Crook Tom Delay

So what about it? Have you finally knocked that "log" from your eye? It's not about the liberals, democrats, blacks, or anybody else. It's about you white folks who followed these crooks over the cliff. Behaviour that you would never tolate from black folk has become standard procedure for the republican party and you have enabled it. Delay, Frist, Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, they have all let you down. Isn;t time to start thinking for yourself? Is this the kind of America you want? While I have a lot of problems with conservatives I am not adverse to a person like Dick Lugar or Chuck Hagel running this country. These are decent men with character and integrity. The clowns that you are supporting are embarassing you. Isn't your support worth more? Don't you deserve politicians with true ethics and morals? Like I've admonished you before, if someone has to keep telling you how christian and moral he is, watch out! It is deeds not words that are the true measure of a human being.

:: DM1 9/28/2005 09:35:00 PM [+] ::
...

Another Taste of that Crook Tom Delay:

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 09:09:22 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 9/28/2005 09:34:00 PM [+] ::
...

A Note About That Crook Tom Delay

I wrote the following blog more than a year ago:

Messege to Kerry Supporters:

Here's a email that I sent to Mary Tarr a Kerry supporter in Maryland: Mary,It's time to take off the gloves. Kerry and Edwards need to demand debates with Bush and Cheney immediately and if they don't accept curse them for the cowards that they are. We've got troops still dying almost daily. What is Kerry waiting for? He fought in an insane war. He has an obligation to take the fight to Bush now! Also Kerry and Edwards don't need to apologize for the words of anybody that opposes Bush. Use Cheney's behavior on theSenate floor as an example. He said he was glad that he told Leahy to "F--- off." Bush is steadily lying daily. Kerry should call him on it. Look this election is going to be one of the nastiest ones on record. Let Edwards talk about domestic policies. Kerry needs to focus on Bush, hisrecord, and foreign policy. You've got Iraq getting ready to boil over. The Iraqi President is calling for NATO and the Kurds are calling for independence. If Kerry doesn't begin to engage Bush, "forcefully" then events may overwhelm his message. For each issue he debates, Kerry should release a white paper that clearly states his position and views. He is not going to please everybody. So don't try.

Also, it's time to connect that crook Delay to the Bush Administration's criminal culture. Time is of the essence. I told you, I worked in the RNC. I have been a republican for 18 years. I was raised in D.C. so I know when I am in a street fight. I have a blog:

militantone@blogspot.com use any and all information and comments with my blessing. How embarassed are we supposed get over these clowns? Haven't they disgraced us enough? Let's get this party started right!Peace,Da' Militant One
:: DM1 7/13/2004 07:28:21 PM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 9/28/2005 09:30:00 PM [+] ::
...

Affirmative Action for White Conservative Republicans


September 24, 2005Amid Many Fights Over Qualifications, a Bush Nomination Stalls in the Senate
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM and STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 - Faced with accusations that the Bush administration is stocking the government with unqualified cronies, the Republican chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is holding up the nomination of a lawyer with little background in immigration or customs to head the law enforcement agency in charge of those issues.

Democrats have seized on the political fury that developed over the apparent lack of qualifications of Michael D. Brown, the director, and others in the Federal Emergency Management Agency who were called on to deal with the calamity caused by Hurricane Katrina. Day after day, Democratic lawmakers have begun aggressively challenging the credentials of people President Bush wants to place in midlevel government positions.
The homeland security chairwoman, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, says she now wants to inquire further into the qualifications of Julie L. Myers to be assistant secretary of homeland security for immigration and customs enforcement.

The senior Democrat on the Senate committee, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, said Friday that he was not persuaded by a confirmation hearing last week that Ms. Myers, who has worked the last four years at the White House and in several agencies, satisfied the legal requirement that the official in charge of the immigration agency have at least five years' experience in law enforcement and management.

Ms. Myers, 36, is on her honeymoon and cannot be immediately called to testify again. She has strong Republican connections and is the niece of Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before she joined the Bush administration, she was a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn.

The White House continued to express support for her Friday.
"Julie Myers is well known and respected throughout the law enforcement community, and she has a proven track record as a strong and effective manager," said Erin Healy, a presidential spokeswoman.

In addition to the questions about Ms. Myers, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan has objected to the nomination of Stewart Baker to be assistant secretary of homeland security for policy. Mr. Baker, who won committee approval despite Mr. Levin's opposition, is an accomplished technology lawyer, but he has little experience in disaster management.

At the same time, the Center for American Progress, a research institute for out-of-office Democratic policy experts, has questioned whether Andrew B. Maner is qualified for his position as chief financial officer of the Homeland Security Department, which has a budget of about $35 billion and more than 180,000 employees. Mr. Maner's main government experience before joining this administration was a job in the White House press office under the first President Bush.

The questions of credentials are not limited to homeland security. For example, the main experience of Brian D. Montgomery, who in June became assistant secretary for housing and federal housing commissioner, was performing advance work in the Bush presidential campaign of 2000 and in the current administration's first term.

Mr. Montgomery's responsibilities now include overseeing the $500 billion Federal Housing Administration insurance portfolio. His background in housing is limited to a few years as communications director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.
People who have studied the workings of the federal government for years say this administration is no worse than President Bill Clinton's or any other recent ones in the qualifications of political appointees.

"The vast majority of appointees are good, qualified and committed, but in every administration you have people who are not up to the job," said Patricia McGinnis, president of the Council for Excellence in Government, a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization devoted to improving government performance through better management and leadership.

Paul C. Light, a political scientist at New York University, said, "In every administration, there are certain people you have to find places for: people who worked on your campaign or were contributors or are well connected with other politicians."

Clay Johnson III, who was head of the White House personnel office for the first three years of the current Bush administration and is now deputy budget director, said Mr. Bush's appointees had been "superbly qualified," in large part because the president emphasized selecting candidates who were committed to carrying out his policy objectives.

Across the government, there are more than 3,000 executive positions the president can fill without regard to Civil Service rules. They range from those of cabinet officers to personal secretaries. About 500 are subject to Senate confirmation. The trick for any president, Mr. Light said, is to fill the top jobs and those that require particular expertise with especially qualified people and then find other positions for job seekers with political or personal connections.

Certain departments and agencies tend to become dumping grounds for those with connections. "In a Republican administration," said G. Calvin Mackenzie, a government professor at Colby College, "HUD is like a witness protection program." Democrats are more likely to put their political cronies in the Commerce Department or the Small Business Administration. David E. Lewis, an assistant professor of politics at Princeton, recently published a study of 614 federal programs managed by 245 agencies. He looked at how each program was assessed under the scale the Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget uses to determine how well a program functions. Mr. Lewis found that programs run by political appointees "get systematically lower management grades than bureau chiefs drawn from the Civil Service."
One explanation for Mr. Lewis's finding may be rapid turnover. Political appointees stay on the job an average of only two years or so, then take private-sector jobs where they use the experience and contacts they have gained in the government.

In an essay she wrote shortly after leaving the White House, Constance Horner, who was director of presidential personnel for the first President Bush, said: "The job seekers continue to come in order, as they say in many variations, 'to give something back to the country' that's been good to them. They want only to serve 'this president' and no other. Alternatively (or perhaps more explicitly) they've 'paid their dues' and feel, however genteelly they put it, that they are 'owed something.' "

:: DM1 9/25/2005 07:38:00 AM [+] ::
...

Apocalypse Now!

For all of you Bush supporters, have you had enough yet? The country is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to your support of affirmative action for white folks. Bush never has been and never was qualified to run as dog catcher let alone President of the United States. This is what happens you deny reality and vote ideology. You own the three branches of government yet the country is worse off now than it has ever been. It says a lot about your idiocy and your lack of wisdom. Isn't it time to cut your losses for the sake of the country?

:: DM1 9/24/2005 04:36:00 AM [+] ::
...

Here's a copy of an Email that I sent to Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland:

Dear Sir,

I am very dissappointed in the democratic party. Some of the republicans have been showing their bigoted and racist spots with their rhetoric in the past two weeks since the hurricane. Who will denounce them? Who will take to the floor of Congress and stand up to these bullies and scoundrels? Has the Democratic party become so cowed that it can not defend fellow citizens who are being disparaged as well as marginalized by these disgraceful excuses for human beings? I hope that someone will tell them what they can do with their racism and bigotry. We are fighting the good fight out here, but we need all of you to stand with us.

:: DM1 9/10/2005 10:04:00 AM [+] ::
...

Let's Move Forward

Every time Bush f*cks up his minions want folks to forget that he screwed up and move forward. No accountability, no recriminations, no fault, just move forward. The inability to hold the Dauphin accountable is amazing. The chickens have come back to the coop and are now roosting and still the Bush spawn is trying to twist reality and the facts. I wonder what their definition of being an American is? It sure isn't covering day after day for an incompetent administration which they seem to relish. Remember Bill Clinton's "wee wee"? Clinton's "wee wee" had to be punished and he was impeached. What does it take for Bush to be held accountable. He could be caught on tape admitting to a crime holding the gun with a written signed confession and still his supporters would find him guilty of nothing, but would instead praise him for his honesty and willingness to "move forward." It's worst than embarassing, it's criminal and treasonous.

:: DM1 9/06/2005 10:09:00 AM [+] ::
...

Trent Lott never stops amazing me! I just heard a video of him with Anderson Cooper on CNN. He sounded as out of touch and specious as I remember. I reposted a blog a wrote after the Strom Thurmond fiasco. It's just a few blogs down. This was before I heard his interview. What an as*!

:: DM1 9/04/2005 11:24:00 AM [+] ::
...

Article by Frank Rich of the New York Times:

September 4, 2005
Falluja Floods the Superdome
By FRANK RICH

AS the levees cracked open and ushered hell into New Orleans on Tuesday, President Bush once again chose to fly away from Washington, not toward it, while disaster struck. We can all enumerate the many differences between a natural catastrophe and a terrorist attack. But character doesn't change: it is immutable, and it is destiny.

As always, the president's first priority, the one that sped him from Crawford toward California, was saving himself: he had to combat the flood of record-low poll numbers that was as uncontrollable as the surging of Lake Pontchartrain. It was time, therefore, for another disingenuous pep talk, in which he would exploit the cataclysm that defined his first term, 9/11, even at the price of failing to recognize the emerging fiasco likely to engulf Term 2.

After dispatching Katrina with a few sentences of sanctimonious boilerplate ("our hearts and prayers are with our fellow citizens"), he turned to his more important task. The war in Iraq is World War II. George W. Bush is F.D.R. And anyone who refuses to stay his course is soft on terrorism and guilty of a pre-9/11 "mind-set of isolation and retreat." Yet even as Mr. Bush promised "victory" (a word used nine times in this speech on Tuesday), he was standing at the totemic scene of his failure. It was along this same San Diego coastline that he declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln more than two years ago. For this return engagement, The Washington Post reported, the president's stage managers made sure he was positioned so that another hulking aircraft carrier nearby would stay off-camera, lest anyone be reminded of that premature end of "major combat operations."

This administration would like us to forget a lot, starting with the simple fact that next Sunday is the fourth anniversary of the day we were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Even before Katrina took command of the news, Sept. 11, 2005, was destined to be a half-forgotten occasion, distorted and sullied by a grotesquely inappropriate Pentagon-sponsored country music jamboree on the Mall. But hard as it is to reflect upon so much sorrow at once, we cannot allow ourselves to forget the real history surrounding 9/11; it is the Rosetta stone for what is happening now. If we are to pull ourselves out of the disasters of Katrina and Iraq alike, we must live in the real world, not the fantasyland of the administration's faith-based propaganda. Everything connects.

Though history is supposed to occur first as tragedy, then as farce, even at this early stage we can see that tragedy is being repeated once more as tragedy. From the president's administration's inattention to threats before 9/11 to his disappearing act on the day itself to the reckless blundering in the ill-planned war of choice that was 9/11's bastard offspring, Katrina is déjà vu with a vengeance.

The president's declaration that "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees" has instantly achieved the notoriety of Condoleezza Rice's "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." The administration's complete obliviousness to the possibilities for energy failures, food and water deprivation, and civil disorder in a major city under siege needs only the Donald Rumsfeld punch line of "Stuff happens" for a coup de grâce. How about shared sacrifice, so that this time we might get the job done right? After Mr. Bush's visit on "Good Morning America" on Thursday, Diane Sawyer reported on a postinterview conversation in which he said, "There won't have to be tax increases."

But on a second go-round, even the right isn't so easily fooled by this drill (with the reliable exception of Peggy Noonan, who found much reassurance in Mr. Bush's initial autopilot statement about the hurricane, with its laundry list of tarps and blankets). This time the fecklessness and deceit were all too familiar. They couldn't be obliterated by a bullhorn or by the inspiring initial post-9/11 national unity that bolstered the president until he betrayed it. This time the heartlessness beneath the surface of his actions was more pronounced.

You could almost see Mr. Bush's political base starting to crumble at its very epicenter, Fox News, by Thursday night. Even there it was impossible to ignore that the administration was no more successful at securing New Orleans than it had been at pacifying Falluja.
A visibly exasperated Shepard Smith, covering the story on the ground in Louisiana, went further still, tossing hand grenades of harsh reality into Bill O'Reilly's usually spin-shellacked "No Spin Zone." Among other hard facts, Mr. Smith noted "that the haves of this city, the movers and shakers of this city, evacuated the city either immediately before or immediately after the storm." What he didn't have to say, since it was visible to the entire world, was that it was the poor who were left behind to drown.

In that sense, the inequality of the suffering has not only exposed the sham of the relentless photo-ops with black schoolchildren whom the president trots out at campaign time to sell his "compassionate conservatism"; it has also positioned Katrina before a rapt late-summer audience as a replay of the sinking of the Titanic. New Orleans's first-class passengers made it safely into lifeboats; for those in steerage, it was a horrifying spectacle of every man, woman and child for himself.

THE captain in this case, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, was so oblivious to those on the lower decks that on Thursday he applauded the federal response to the still rampaging nightmare as "really exceptional." He told NPR that he had "not heard a report of thousands of people in the convention center who don't have food and water" - even though every television viewer in the country had been hearing of those 25,000 stranded refugees for at least a day. This Titanic syndrome, too, precisely echoes the post-9/11 wartime history of an administration that has rewarded the haves at home with economic goodies while leaving the have-nots to fight in Iraq without proper support in manpower or armor. Surely it's only a matter of time before Mr. Chertoff and the equally at sea FEMA director, Michael Brown (who also was among the last to hear about the convention center), are each awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom in line with past architects of lethal administration calamity like George Tenet and Paul Bremer.

On Thursday morning, the president told Diane Sawyer that he hoped "people don't play politics during this period of time." Presumably that means that the photos of him wistfully surveying the Katrina damage from Air Force One won't be sold to campaign donors as the equivalent 9/11 photos were. Maybe he'll even call off the right-wing attack machine so it won't Swift-boat the Katrina survivors who emerge to ask tough questions as it has Cindy Sheehan and those New Jersey widows who had the gall to demand a formal 9/11 inquiry.

But a president who flew from Crawford to Washington in a heartbeat to intervene in the medical case of a single patient, Terri Schiavo, has no business lecturing anyone about playing politics with tragedy. Eventually we're going to have to examine the administration's behavior before, during and after this storm as closely as its history before, during and after 9/11. We're going to have to ask if troops and matériel of all kinds could have arrived faster without the drain of national resources into a quagmire. We're going to have to ask why it took almost two days of people being without food, shelter and water for Mr. Bush to get back to Washington.
Most of all, we're going to have to face the reality that with this disaster, the administration has again increased our vulnerability to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting after 9/11. As Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, pointed out to The Washington Post last week in talking about the fallout from the war in Iraq, there have been twice as many terrorist attacks outside Iraq in the three years after 9/11 than in the three years before. Now, thanks to Mr. Bush's variously incompetent, diffident and hubristic mismanagement of the attack by Katrina, he has sent the entire world a simple and unambiguous message: whatever the explanation, the United States is unable to fight its current war and protect homeland security at the same time.

The answers to what went wrong in Washington and on the Gulf Coast will come later, and, if the history of 9/11 is any guide, all too slowly, after the administration and its apologists erect every possible barrier to keep us from learning the truth. But as Americans dig out from Katrina and slouch toward another anniversary of Al Qaeda's strike, we have to acknowledge the full extent and urgency of our crisis. The world is more perilous than ever, and for now, to paraphrase Mr. Rumsfeld, we have no choice but to fight the war with the president we have.

:: DM1 9/04/2005 11:14:00 AM [+] ::
...

Here is a post from the News Blog: It has STRONG LANGUAGE! The blog is stark and I agree with it 100%. It was never about Bush being a republican. It was about an incompetent individual holding the highest office in the land and being thoroughly unprepared and unfit for the position. It was about the country and the need to maintain our strength, character, and what unity we had. There is another civil war happening and this time it is for the soul of America. You say that God finds favor with the country because we are a Christian nation. well God detests fake Christians more than he does sinners because they should know better. Does anyone wonder why God seemingly hasn't been answering our prayers lating? And this is for the religious folk not the non-believers because according to the folks that are trying to lead our country to the right and a theocracy are telling the rest of us to get right with God. Well we've had 9/11, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, high gas prices, the largest deficit in history, and on and on. Maybe God is so ashamed of what you purport to do in his name that he is leaving you to your own devices. My disgust for your behavior is palpable. You are a danger to the rest of us through your blindness and slavish devotion to George W. Bush. And now the blog from the News Blog:

WE TOLD YOU SO

Ever wonder why New Yorkers detest George Bush? Because we experienced his incompetence up close and person. We knew this guy was full of sh*t, absolutely full of f*cking sh*t, after they started to play games with the funding and gave Wyoming terrorism money. We knew he was an assclown then. We thought DC 9/11 was a comedy, because the Bush we saw hid in AF One like the scared bitch that he is. But did you listen? F*ck no. Until last week, Ann Coulter was calling New Yorkers cowards for not endorsing Bush's folly in Iraq. We have been screaming for two years that Bush and his team sucked. That they had no clue. They sent soldiers to be wounded in Iraq without armored anything. And you idiots cheered him on from the safety of your keyboards. We told you he was f*cking up Iraq. But no, we supported Saddam, we were racist, we blamed America. You say this isn't about politics? F*ck you, this IS politics, real time, real life politics, where the insanity of all your ideas are exposed to the world for the fraud that they are. Tax cuts kill. Ask the relatives of the dead of the Gulf Coast. Well, motherf*ckers, the alligators are feasting on dead n*gger and there isn't an Iraqi in sight. And Bush is trying to gladhand his way through a mess which has stunned FOX reporters. I mean, Shepard Smith is calling Fox's talking heads liars ON THE AIR.

CNN rips Bush in print and online after nearly five years of sleep. Instead of hearing what we had to say about Bush, you called John Kerry a coward, mocked Max Cleland, blamed everything but herpes on Bill Clinton. You enabled Bush into this mess and now you're shocked?
Now, Fox can be outraged, now, Wash Times and Union Leader call Bush weak? Well, his coward ass disappeared in 2001. But you rather blame Michael Moore for that. He can't even explain the Iraq war to a grieving mother. So what did you do? rite the most vile things about her and her dead son. Attacked her patriotism and her honesty. Well, motherf*ckers, and that means you, fat ass Goldberg and your master, Rich Lowry, PNAC Bitch Beinart, the racist wannabe white Malkin and the little f*cktards at LGF, Bareback Andy and "Diversity" Instacracker, all you backstabbing, fag hating uncle tom ministers, you can see Dear Leader in action. America's largest port is gone, maybe forever, gas is $5+ a gallon and FEMA is coming. Whores come faster with old men than FEMA is getting to NOLA. How did your wartime President react? Like Chiang Kai-Shek when the Yellow River flooded in 1944, with corrupt indifference.

Bush, the man your fever dreams built into the next Winston Churchill when he is really the live action Chauncey Gardiner, has failed to everyone, in plain sight, without question. Rick Perry is trying to save his ass, but it ain't working. NOLA looks like ANGOLA and that ain't flying.
Say 9/11 changed everything now, motherf*ckers. Ooops, 9/11, 9/11. 9/11. Doesn't work anymore? Gee, maybe the sea of alligator MRE's once known as the citizens of New Orleans has something to do with that. Now you can shut the f*ck up about 9/11. Bush just proved what would happen with another 9/11. Dead Americans as far as the nose can smell. Drunken Chris Hitchens muttered some nonsense about blacks having it so good here. The poor man needs to stay in his bottle or go to Betty Ford before someone beats his treasonous ass stupid. Islamofascism means what, now motherf*cker? Shove Islamofascism up your well travelled ass. The most dangerous thing to average Americans is not some mullah in Iraq, not even Osama Bin Laden, but George Bush. If he doesn't get you killed in Iraq, he'll f*ck up saving your city so it turns into Escape from New Orleans. Armed junkies roaming the streets, looking for a fix, robbing and looting like Serb paramilitaries and about as sober. George Bush's ineptitude has killed far more Americans than Osama could have dreamed of. Some of you still try to see the clothes on the Dauphin, but he's as naked as Peter North around Jenna Jameson. Bush f*cked up so bad, FOX turned on him like a rabid dog. You can't hide behind racism forever. Bush f*cked up, Bush is a weak, callous leader and the world knows this like it knows few other things. And all the stolen TV's in the world cannot hide that.

posted by Steve @ 12:01:00 AM

:: DM1 9/04/2005 10:07:00 AM [+] ::
...