Stratagem

2003-10-01T16:47:00.000-04:00

2003-10-01T16:21:00.000-04:00

2003-10-01T13:22:00.000-04:00

Click Here to hear the audio of Larry Johnson on PBS's Newshour.

2003-10-01T13:18:00.000-04:00

"It sickens me to be a Republican to see this"

From PBS's Newshour. Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department.
This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat ...

I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

O'Rielly has come to the conclusion that this story is no big deal and will go away. What a piece of shit.

2003-09-24T13:10:00.000-04:00

O'LIELLY"S LOSING IT

Bill O'Reilly has began to lose it folks. Al Franken has finally gotten to him. Bill spent a hour yesterday on the radio attacking Franken for calling Brit Hume an asshole and a fuckin moron at a fundraiser for Howard Dean. He replayed the incident on t.v. and radio. He blasted Dean for having the deranged, drunk, vindictive Franken at the event. Bill never once brought up the reasons for Franken's outlash on Brit. What Mr. Hume said was "Two hundred and seventy-seven US soldiers have now died in Iraq which means that statistically speaking US soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California which is roughly the same geographical size." Click Here If that's not the stupidest most intellectually dishonest statement a news anchor could ever make, then I don't know what is. Why don't you tell the soldiers in Iraq that they are more safe there, where rocket-propelled grenades and suicide bombers are an everyday occurrence, than in California. He is a fuckin moron for that statement alone. You see Bill can call people every name in the book and it's o.k. as long as he doesn't use the "f" word or any other so called dirty words. Pin head is o.k. Moron without the fuckin in front of it is o.k. Idiot is just fine so come on Bill do us all a favor a finish up with your mental breakdown already. It's gotta be killing him that his new book is out now and it's ranked #5 on Amazon.com right behind Al Franken #4, who's been out for over a month now. As I'm writing this I'm listening to factor radio and he's still talking about Franken. It's just a matter of time folks.

2003-09-22T16:19:00.000-04:00

Great article by Eric Alterman on Ronald Regan

2003-09-22T14:24:00.000-04:00

U.N.- WE NEED YOUR HELP

Am I crazy or were the French, Germans, and Russians right about the war in Iraq? Remember people, France and Germany asked Bush for thirty more days before deciding on whether to go to war and Bush snubbed them. Now Bush is asking for their help and so far they have declined. Is anyone really surprised? This administration does not seem to understand what the meaning of the word diplomacy is. They felt they could say and do whatever they wanted and the rest of the world will fall in line. And if they did not they would be looked at as enemies to our country. Remember U.N. resolution 1441 was past unanimously, but it did say that before making the decision to go to war that the Bush administration would come back to the U.N. for a vote. When they realized they didn't have the votes, Bush snubbed them again and didn't go back. Remember the line "show your cards" Bush said in referring to the nations who would ultimately vote for the use of force. Instead of having these nations show their cards bush folded instead. Now he wants their help because he's realized what a mess he's made in Iraq. Believe me if things were going well Bush would have never gone back to the U.N.

I want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq more than anyone. My parents were born there and I still have relatives who live there. It just doesn't seem realistic. Democracy has never worked in the middle east, especially in Iraq. If it were to succeed this was not the way to do it. It was not the responsibility of the United States of America, my country which I love, to overthrow a dictator who posed no immediate threat to our country. In my opinion, Saudi Arabia poses more of a threat than Iraq did because for one, they do support terrorism. They act as our allies, but the truth is they are no better than Saddam. They don't put the knife in our back, they put it in our stomach and laugh in our face as we slowly die. More on them later.

Click Here for the TRUTH

2003-09-18T17:09:00.000-04:00

NO 9-11 LINK

Today Bush jr. said "we have no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussien and 9-11". Amazing isn't it. 7 out 10 Americans still believe the oppositte. Why you might ask? Because jr. and the neo-cons led us to believe that in the run up to war and now they are back tracking. They knew it all along. They lied to the soldiers, their families, the nation, and the world. What will it take for before we as a nation see jr. for what he is. A dangerous neo-con nut who used the office of the presidency to push his crazed agenda. Repeat the President of the United States, George W. Bush has said pubilcly that Saddam had no connection to the 9-11 attacks. NO CONNECTION. Am I crazy folks or has he admitted in that statement that he is a liar. The worst kind of a liar is one who lies to you knowing that you know he's lying but still expects you to believe it. Sad, sad day.

2003-09-17T13:57:00.000-04:00

Independent?

Are you a Democrat or Republican? Conservative or Liberal? Independent?

Labels,labels,labels. Are there really any independents out there? What the hell is an independent anyways? A moderate conservative or liberal. That’s all folks. People who don’t want to be perceived as partisan say they are independent. Just ask Bill O’Reilly. Most Americans have beliefs that lean right or left. Most Americans disagree on some of the issues but does that make them independent. If that were the case than Bill Clinton was our first independent President. I honestly believe there will never be a strong enough third party in this country that will ever occupy the White House. Sorry Greens, but I hold you personally responsible for this debacle of presidency we are currently dealing with. You took votes from Al Gore, thus thrusting the neo-cons into power. Now you tell me was it worth it. The opposite is happening in California today. Bill McClintok and Arnold Schwarzenegger are splitting the Republican vote, thus making Cruz Bustamante the next governor of California, (barring the recall passes). If Republicans are so morally superior to the Democrats than they would support McClintok in a heartbeat. Instead they smell a winner, a liberal with a R next to his name. The only thing conservative about the Terminator is he hates taxes. The only reason we associate hating taxes with Republicans is because of the repeated lie the right has been spewing about the left, and themselves for years now. First off, the Republicans only like tax cuts for the rich. The $300 the majority of Americans received was just a bribe to shut us up in their pursuit to shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle-class and poor. Don’t believe the hype. Democrats believe the exact opposite. They believe the rich should bear the majority of the tax burden because they are rich. It’s not socialism folks, it’s common sense. Would you rather be a rich person paying the majority of the taxes in this country, or a poor person paying a small portion of the taxes. Think about that people.

2003-09-15T17:57:00.000-04:00

LISTEN TO DADDY

“Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep,’ and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.
"We discussed at length the idea of forcing Saddam personally to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border — and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives," — From George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (1998), pp. 489-90.

“If you’re going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?”

2003-09-13T12:29:00.000-04:00

OVER THERE

You know I've been getting a good laugh of late hearing the new theory of why we went to war in Iraq. To fight the terrorist over there and not here. How stupid does the Bush administration think we are? Maybe they are right. We are fuckin stupid because when I turn the T.V. on all hear is the pundits and right-wing nut jobs arguing this theory.
O.K. people, let's start with a little common sense. The terroists are spread across the entire world with cells in just about every major and even minor countries. To think that all these cells will drop what they are doing, i.e, planning another attack here at home, and just fly off to Iraq to fight American soilders is intellectualy dishonest. Why would they wanna fight soldiers when they can fight civilians. So what exactly is the plan. Draw all of em there, kill em all and then declare victory. We are creating terroists as we speak with the occuption. Iraq is our Palestine and this war will never end. We have no business in this country and Bush has started a war we can't win. I know people don't care why Al Queda hates us but the main reason was that we have troops on the holy land (Saudi Arabia). I can see the recriuting posters now.

2003-09-12T16:47:00.000-04:00

WRONG AGAIN DICK

You know I'm so happy that the invasion of Iraq has brought the peace process in the Middle East along. That's what the turn coat, Bush lap dog Dick Morris was saying on Fox News a couple of weeks back. He was on the Factor sucking Bush's dick on how our invasion of Iraq has brought us closer than ever to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Not to mention how we scared the shit out of Iran and North Korea. Their evil ways are in the past thanks to jr. and the neo-cons. Don't we all feel so much safer now. 2 years after 9-11 Bush has done a wonderful job.

Lets list his accomplishments:

1. Attacked the Taliban, couldn't get Bin Laden.
2. Attacked Iraq, couldn't get Saddam.
3. Implemented a road map to peace, couldn't get
peace.
4. Attacked the reccession with tax cuts, couldn't get
jobs.
5. Threatned N. Korea, couldn't get them to stop
their nucleur program.

WOW what a record. Hey Dick, can you please shut the fuck up now. You have been wrong about everything you've said the last 6 months. Why can't you admit when your wrong? This moron also predicted Hillary Clinton would run this year. Your a perfect fit for fox news. Clinton should of beat your ass when he had the chance. You found your niche, Clinton bashing and you ran with it. Shame on you.

2003-09-09T18:12:00.000-04:00

RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT BUSH'S
NATIONAL TELEVISION ADDRESS OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2003

President Bush's illegal war and occupation of Iraq
has left the Administration in a position of extreme
political vulnerability. He now wants the United
Nations and U.S. taxpayers to bail him out. Having
defied U.S. and world public opinion - which
preemptively opposed his planned, illegal invasion of
Iraq - the Bush administration wants to
internationalize responsibility for the U.S. quagmire
in Iraq. With U.S. casualties mounting daily he wants
the soldiers of other countries to do more of the
dying to take the heat off himself at home. And in the
name of fighting international terrorism he wants
already suffering working class, poor and middle class
communities to foot the bill to the tune of another
$87 billion (triple what they had "projected"). Having
had his public rationale(s) for the war been exposed
in recent weeks as a complete fraud, Bush shamelessly
reverts to the time-tested tactic of trying to scare
the hell out of people.

President Bush's conduct on Iraq - before, during and
now after the Iraq war - has made the old cliché about
truth being the "first casualty in war;" to be a grand
understatement. Everything about this "pre-emptive
war" is premised on deceit. Even in the realm of ever
duplicitous "world politics," the Administration's
pattern of cynical deception was and remains
breathtaking. Tonight's nationally televised address
conforms to this pattern of endless deceit.

1) Bush lied before the war. Iraq never posed a grave
and imminent danger to the United States. Iraq had
nothing to do with September 11th. Iraq never
possessed nuclear weapons. Iraq was not rapidly trying
to develop weapons of mass destruction. This was a war
of aggression against the second-largest oil producer
on the planet that had been weakened by a decade of
economic sanctions and political isolation.

2) Bush lied during the war. This was not liberation.
The Iraqi people did not welcome the U.S. armed forces
as liberators but as occupiers. Their lives did not
become better. On the contrary, this culturally rich
society has been torn apart, deprived of necessary
services to sustain civilian society and is on the brink
of internal collapse.

3) Bush is lying now. Iraq is not the battlefield
between "international terrorism" and the forces of
so-called "freedom" and "civilization." The growing
resistance to U.S. occupation is the consequence of an
angry and proud people in Iraq who insist on
reclaiming their own sovereignty. Having killed tens
of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal invasion - and
responsible
for a growing number of dead and maimed U.S. soldiers - the
Bush team wants U.S. taxpayers to spend at least
another $87 billion on the occupation of Iraq. The
vast majority sentiment in Iraq wants the U.S.
soldiers to leave and the U.S. GI's want to go home.
The Iraqi people's call to end the occupation is not a
call for even more foreign nations to occupy Iraq and to
take a share in the looting of Iraq's natural
resources. The truth is that the invasion and
occupation of Iraq is viewed by the people of the
Middle East as an act of "international terrorism" and
as such it can only lead to a dangerous escalation in
the cycle of violence.

Why did Bush address the nation tonight? He, like
Nixon a generation ago, fears that the people of the
United States are turning against this criminal war.
During his administration, Bush has only rarely felt
that he must address the people, and does so when he
fears that a sentiment is growing strong enough to
challenge his illegal actions. He must then lie more
to convince the people of the U.S. to support his
criminal endeavors, or at least acquiesce in them. His
shameful "top gun" act aboard the aircraft carrier the
U.S.S. Lincoln, in front of a "Mission Accomplished"
banner, was an effort to tell people in the United
States and around the world that the war was over and
that no more critical attention need be focused on
Iraq. Tonight, with that lie laid bare, he is seeking
to go a new route, to convince people that far from
being over, the war is a high stakes game to save
"civilization" and "freedom" and that it requires
endless sacrifice in human life and vitally needed
resources.

VoteNoWar.org calls on people in the
United States to join together for a massive
demonstration in Washington DC on October 25th to
demand "Bring the Troops Home Now, End the Occupation
of Iraq." Tens of thousands will be in the streets
that day as the antiwar movement picks up new
momentum.

2003-09-09T12:50:00.000-04:00

THE BLAME CLINTON FIRST CROWD

Don't you just love these guys. You know who I'm talking about. Rush, Sean, Bill, Tucker, Joe, Ann, and pretty much the rest of the right-wing nuts out there. Did you know that is was Clinton's fault the Vietnam War happened? Why not, I'm sure he had something to do with it. Let's give Ken Starr $60 million, let's see if he can find something. Oh wait we already tried that.

Anyways, so the latest is Clinton was responsible for 9-11. The rapist, murderer, 42nd President was at it again when he single-handely slaughtered 3,000 Americans and got away with it. Never mind the fact that it was George W. Bush, not Clinton who was in office in those critical 9 months leading up to the attack. Never mind the fact that it was the Clinton Administration who pre-warned the Bushies when they took office of the imminent threat Al Qaeda posed to this country. Never mind the fact that the Bushies brushed aside warnings by Richard Clarke, head of counterterrorism at the National Secruity Council, about Al Qaeda.

Another lie thats getting cirlcled around by these crazed right-wing pundits is the lie that Clinton did nothing in response to the USS Cole bombings in 2000. In deed it was Bush who did nothing. Clinton could not have taken action until the evidence was collected by US intelligence agencies. The Pentagon didn't issue it's first report until January 10, 2001. Bush had 9 months to respond to the bombings once he took office yet did nothing. So how in the hell can idiots like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly blame Clinton for not taking action, yet place no blame on Bush who did nothing. These people spew these lies and mischaracterizations of the facts day in and day out and it's wrong. They need to be held accountable for their words and opinions. They have power because they are on t.v. and radio and lazy people believe them without finding out the facts for themselves. Ignorance is no excuse in the internet age. It is very easy to find out the real facts about everything on the internet. It is just as easy to comb thru bogus internet sites with legitimate ones. I can't believe someone like Sean Hannity believes half the shit he says. He's an intellectually dishonest person who spews propaganda for his party. A puppet, lapdog, whichever you perfer.

2003-09-08T14:47:00.000-04:00

LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM

Colin Powell to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Sept. 7, 2003, about his presentation to the U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003

"If there was anything that looked the least bit, you know, not supportable, we didn't use it.

Russert of course offered no follow-up.

As Eric Alterman has shown, what was Powell's evidence. "Human resources", "eye witness", "detainees", "an Al Queda source", "a senior defector", and "intelligence sources".

What we found out after: The British Foreign Office was forced to admit that a considerable portion of its Iraq dossier--upon which Powell had decided to rely quite heavily--had been lifted, verbatim, from dated academic sources and even included a portion that was plagiarized from a journal article by an American graduate student. What's more, it turned out that the dossier did not even purport to prove what Powell insisted it did. Recently, the Hutton Commission in England discovered an e-mail from Tony Blair's chief of staff to his boss, explaining that the dossier "does nothing to demonstrate he [Saddam Hussein] has the motive to attack his neighbours, let alone the west. We will need to be clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he is an imminent threat." In recent weeks, Charles Hanley, an Associated Press reporter, subjected Powell's claims to thorough investigation in light of what was known at the time as well as later revelations. It is a tough-minded assessment, and just about nothing in Powell's presentation survived. (You can find it at www.commondreams.org.) Every one of those reports quoted above was, in other words--to borrow Powell's term--"bullshit."

portions taken from Eric Alterman's column in The Nation Sept. 4, 2003

2003-09-08T14:37:00.000-04:00

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R'S AND D'S

Rs seem to believe the role of govt is about:

1. having an intimidating military (so other countries are scared of us),
2. imposing their own personal religious and social norms on everyone (i.e., abortion, "preservation of marriage", abstinence, 10 commandments), and
getting out of the way of and/or helping big business and the wealthy (tax cuts, deregulation, rewarding campaign contributors).

In stark contrast, Ds believe the role of govt is:

1. to protect society and keep us safe (terrorism, defense, the "COPS" program, regulate businesses that might harm or take advantage of us, regulate safety issues, protect the environment so we can all not be poisoned by just breathing, etc)
2. to help the helpless and the average Joes and Janes (medicare, social security, OSHA, overtime pay, etc) and
otherwise stay out of our personal lives (freedom of speech, anti-discrimination, right to privacy in your personal choices, etc)

Taken by a Buzzflash contributor.

2003-09-06T14:57:00.000-04:00

THE NEW FAIR AND BALANCED BLOG Sorry I haven't been posting lately I've been a little busy with my rap career. I will be launching a new web site for all my hip hop fans. The address will be posted soon.

Ok lets get down to business. George Bush will be addressing the nation Sunday night about the Iraq war and how great (horrible) the mission is going. Also a movie is coming out on showtime about 9-11 and how Bush reacted to the events. From what I've heard so far it's all Bullshit. Please Bush no propaganda movies, I mean this is the United States of America, not 1940 Germany. What the hell is going on in this country. We have a president who has destroyed the economy and destroyed the good-will of the world. If he gets another four years than we as Americans better be ready for all hell to break loose. He will be free to do what he wants, how he wants, without having to worry about re-election. That's one reason I am against term limits for presidents because once they are re-elected they pretty much can get away with anything they want without worrying about politics. (Please bring back Clinton, we really need him). Iraq is in shambles no matter how many times the goverment and Fox News tells us it's going great. Don't believe the hype and don't be lazy. Open your eyes, do some research and find the truth out for yourself. That's why God (Al Gore) invented the internet. Use this gift. It's all right there at a click of a button. If Bush gets re-elected than neo-cons will have officially taken over. Prepare for WWIV. (Cold War=WWIII). The draft dodging days are here again. Lets see, how about Iran first that should be cool. Then we can takeover North Korea. That should get Fox news great ratings.

I just finished reading Lies, and the Lying Liers who tell them a fair and balanced look at the the right by Liberal extrodinare Al Franken. I love this guy he tells it like it is and exposes all the phonies on the right like that blonde bomb thrower Anti Coulter and Mr. Independant (Conservative right-wing nut) Bill O'reilly. Hey Bill, I guess the spin stops here for a change. If haven't read it I suggest you pick yourself up a copy if you can still find one. Thanks to Bill and his hissy fit lawsuite the book soured to number #1 on Amazon. Sue me Bill please, I'm begging you , for anything. Your good looking and an honest guy. See now you can sue me for slander.

2003-08-22T12:38:00.000-04:00

Quotes from Hollywood

Robert Altman. "This present government in America I just find disgusting, the idea that George Bush could run a baseball team successfully -he can't even speak! I just find him an embarrassment."

Jennifer Aniston. "Bush is a f**king idiot."

Ed Asner. "I feel that George Bush's actions are desecrating the America that I grew up in and believed in. He is making us an imperialist government. He is choosing to replace heads of state and government he doesn't like."

Alec Baldwin. "the moratorium on criticizing the government must be extended longer and longer and longer - ideally, beyond the 2002 election"

Joy Behar. ""What I think we should do is draw up a petition, everybody sign in crayon, and then he'll understand."

Harry Belafonte. Talking about Bush using 9/11 to "extend its imperialist, economic and political domination all over the planet"

Sandra Bernhard. "The real terrorist threats are George W. Bush and his band of brown-shirted thugs."

George Carlin. "I disagree with his policies, and think he is a dangerous imbecile"

Cher. "I don't like Bush. I don't trust him. I don't like his record. He's stupid. He's lazy."

David Clennon. "I'm not comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler - because George Bush, for one thing, is not as smart as Adolf Hitler. And secondly George Bush has much more power than Adolf Hitler ever had."

George Clooney. "The problem is we elected a manager, and we need a leader. Let's face it: Bush is just dim."

John Cusack. "This dude who’s got control of the White House now, he’s gonna do a lot of damage,”

Ani DiFranco. "It's hard to wake up every day with a feeling that you are ashamed of your country"

Dixie Chicks. "I feel the President is ignoring the opinions of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world."

Sandy Duncan. "It would have been great to have someone really, really smart in that office, and someone who is globally aware."

Mike Farrell. "It is inappropriate for the administration to trump up a case in which we are ballyhooed into war."

Jane Fonda. "I don't know if a country where the people are so ignorant of reality and of history, if you can call that a free world."

Janeane Garofalo. Special mention to her and the courage she had to appear on Fox and Friends where she was ridiculed by three idiots who were wrong. She was right and Fox should apologise to her. "There is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. You never even get that idea floated in the mainstream media. If you bring it up, they hate the messenger. You've ruined everyone's good time." and ""You have anchors saying all the time, 'Well, we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.’ No, we don't. We do not. We do not know that." and "There's no way a war in Iraq will go well." and "There is no way any rational, reasonable person can say that the Bush Administration has been good for America." and finally "The parents of the troops who die and the parents of Iraqi civilians who die should have the right to slap a lot of these media outlets with a suit of criminal negligence. Military parents would have a legitimate case, especially against Fox and the New York Post for cheerleading this thing the whole way, for waving the flag, and using knee-jerk, sycophantic, pseudo-patriotism as a tool to galvanize public opinion."

Richard Gere. "Bush's plans for war are a bizarre bad dream. There doesn't appear to be any sort of basis for any of this. I have a feeling something hidden is at work here that will someday see the light of day." and "America has never paid any attention to other people, so it's absurd for Bush to say that it's all in the best interests of the Iraqi people."

Danny Glover. "Something is happening now that is very dark and very sinister in this country, and for us to not admit it is happening is, in some ways, for us to be blind."

Whoopi Goldberg.

Larry Hagman. "(Bush is ) not too well educated, who doesn't get out of America much. He's leading the country towards fascism."

Woody Harrelson. "The war against terrorism is terrorism. The whole thing is just bullsh*t." and "We've killed a million Iraqis since the start of the Gulf war -- mostly by blocking humanitarian aid." and "I'm an American tired of lies. And with our government, it's mostly lies."

Ed Harris. "we’ve got this guy in the White House who thinks he is a man"

Dustin Hoffman. "I believe - though I may wrong because I am no expert - that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil." and "If there is no direct threat why are we invading?"

Chrissie Hynde. "Have we gone to war yet? We (beep) deserve to get bombed. Bring it on."

Jessica Lange. "what Bush intends to do with Iraq is unconstitutional, immoral and illegal." and "It is an immoral war that they are beginning and we must not be silenced. We have to be able to stand up and say no."

Spike Lee. "You don't have to believe that the war on Iraq is a war on terrorism. I don't think they are one and the same." and "When you think about it, the German and French governments should be commended."

Madonna. "You know it's ironic that we're fighting for democracy in Iraq because we ultimately aren't celebrating democracy here." and "anybody who has anything to say against the war or against the president or whatever -- is punished, and that's not democracy -- it's people being intolerant."

Dave Matthews. "I fear that our true motivation is about oil and our own flailing economy; about the failure to destroy Al Qaeda and about revenge."

Moby. "always get nervous when oilmen talk about aggressive foreign policy that involves oil-producing nations. And I get nervous about George W's sabre rattling against Iraq given the embarrassment that the Bush family feels about not ousting Saddam the first time around. And I get very nervous whenever politicians talk about war around election time" and "I wanna apologise for being american. Thankfully there are one or two good americans, I don't know if any of them are here tonight. But most of all I wanna apologise for our crazy dictator of a president George W Bush."

Michael Moore. "You see, George, it's not the lying and the doctoring of intelligence that has me all upset. It's that you've had control of Iraq for over two months now -- and you couldn't even find the time to plant just a few nukes or vats of nerve gas and at least make it look like you weren't lying to us."

Viggo Mortensen. ""Since 9-11, more people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq than in New York that day — and for not a very good reason." and "What the United States has been doing for the past year is bombing innocent civilians without having come anywhere close to catching Osama bin Laden or any presumed enemy"

Edward Norton. "As an actor I know in my mind, watching him (Bush), what a low-quality mind he has. Because I've been doing this since I was 5 years old, I know when a person is saying words that aren't their own - and it's apparent as it could possibly be to me that he's a mouthpiece, and not even a good mouthpiece. Reagan was a B-movie actor, but at least he had the ability to touch certain emotional notes. Bush is just utterly incapable of it."

Pearl Jam. "With three Supreme Court positions opening in the next administration, I'm frightened to think of a Republican in office, especially one raised by a father who was in the CIA. I'm moving to a different country if little Damien II gets elected."

Sean Penn. "I think that people like the Howard Sterns, the Bill O'Reillys and to a lesser degree the bin Ladens of the world are making a horrible contribution. I'd like to trade O'Reilly for bin Laden. O'Reilly is a grumpy, self-loathing joke." and ""There's a long history of people who capitalize on the lowest common denominator of people's impulses. Adolf Hitler being one of them."

Tim Robbins. "Our resistance to this war should be our resistance to profit at the cost of human life. Because that is what these drums beating over Iraq are really about. This is about business."

Julia Roberts. "He's embarrassing. He's not my president. He will never be my president." and "Republican comes in the dictionary just after reptile and just above repugnant"

Susan Sarandon. "Before our kids start coming home from Iraq in body bags and women and children start dying in Baghdad, I need to know, what did Iraq do to us?" and "I'm tired of being labelled anti-American because I ask questions."

Martin Sheen. "George W Bush is like a bad comic working the crowd, a moron, if you'll pardon the expression." and "By some demented form of logic, the men, women and children of Iraq are relegated to 'collateral damage' as the dogs of war slouch toward Baghdad."

Oliver Stone. "Bin Laden was completely protected by the oil companies in this country who told Bush not to go after him because it would piss off the Saudis."

Barbara Streisand. "As we have learned in the past weeks, we cannot trust George W. Bush." and "We cannot let the right wing roll back more than thirty years of social progress." and "We have a president who stole the presidency through family ties, arrogance and intimidation, employing Republican operatives to exercise the tactics of voter fraud by disenfranchising thousands of blacks, elderly Jews and other minorities." and "The president is our leader, the figurehead of the country, a father figure. Are the 'children' supposed to follow his example? Are we in an era of trickle-down immorality, like trickle-down economics? The country sees their leader not telling the truth. These actions send a message that you don’t have to mean what you say, that you don’t have to care about other people, that you can do whatever you have to do or say whatever you have to say to get ahead. Is that the message we want to impart to our children? Is that the culture we want to live in?"

Gore Vidal. "How we dare even prate about democracy is beyond me. Our form of democracy is bribery, on the highest scale. It's far worse than anything that occurred in the Roman empire, until the praetorian guard started to sell the principate. We're not a democracy, and we have absolutely nothing to give the world in the way of political ideas or political arrangements. God knows, the mention of justice is like a clove of garlic to Count Dracula." and "These people are for the most part rip-off artists. Notice that they’re all gas and oil men from Cheney, to the two Bushes; I think Rumsfeld also." and "As dumb as this administration is, they don't look ahead. They don't know where any countries are. They don't know how to make deals. They don't really know much about anything. There is no plan."

Robin Williams. "We’re here tonight because of the Shrub, you know who I’m talking about. George W. Bush, Jr. The W stands for ‘where the Hell is it?’ You know, you look at George W. and you realize some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some get it as a graduation gift. So sad. I just want to ask the Secret Service, is it true that his Secret Service code name is Gilligan?" and "We have a president for whom English is a second language. He's like 'We have to get rid of dictators,' but he's pretty much one himself."

2003-08-07T13:13:00.000-04:00

Hi Buzz,

My name is DME and I'm a rapper from Detroit. My parents were born in Iraq and immigrated here in the 70's. I still have relatives who live in Baghdad who have suffered through the Iraq-Iran war, the first Gulf War, and now the American Occupation. I don't consider myself a Democratic but I am liberal. I vote democratic for the most part. Even though I've wanted Saddam removed from power for years now, I was against the war in Iraq. No one will argue that the world isn't a better place with Saddam out of power. However, the President of the United States is supposed to do whats in the best interst of The United States. Not the Iraqi people. I could have been selfish and been in favor of the war because it would help my people in the end. However, I am an American first. This war was bad for America. Al Queda now has a new country it can rummage through and recruit new members. Saddam would have never let the likes of Bin Laden gain any type of power in his country. Bush lied about the threat Iraq posed to America. At best he was mislead by other people in his administration. Either way this policy has been a disastor. I am so sick of hearing the comparisons to Vietnam when talking heads say that the death toll is no where near that of Vietnam. That's a spit in the face of the over 200 dead soldiers and their families. how about the wounded soldiers and civilian deaths which are never reported. Remember when France and Germany asked for another 30 days to let inspections work and Bush snubbed the idea. 30 days might have saved the soldiers but this gun-ho president decided against it. No WMD's, no nukes, no ties to Al Queda, no threat to America. Why did we go to war then? Humanitarian reasons. I think not. There are a number humanitarion crisis going on the world as we speak and this president isn't rushing to those people's rescue.

I visit your web site everyday and appreciate everything your doing. You inspired the song I did called Mass Deception with that line Bush Lied and our Soldiers Died. I will send you a copy of the song once it's complete if you are interseted.

E-Mail me back with an address so I can send you a copy. I think you will really like the song even if your not a fan of rap. The hook goes like this- Bush Lied and our Soilders Died/God Bless them all and the Ones Still Alive".

I am going to publish the song on Kazaa so it can get out there.

2003-07-30T10:50:00.000-04:00

From: "Levin, Senator (Levin)" |
To: dme48185@yahoo.com

Dear Delon:

Thank you for contacting me regarding my support for a bipartisan
review of the intelligence that Congress and the country received prior to
the war in Iraq.

Our military forces conducted a brilliant campaign to rid the world of
the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Now our challenge must be to bring
democracy and stability to Iraq. Our chances of meeting that challenge
will be increased, and the risk to our troops will be reduced, if we
actively reach out to involve the world community through NATO and the
United Nations in the peacekeeping operations and reconstruction in Iraq.

To help gain international support, we must also face another challenge
-- assuring the objectivity and reliability of the intelligence
information our leaders use to make life-and-death decisions regarding our
security.

Last January, the President stated in his State of the Union address
that the British government had learned that Iraq recently sought to
purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Africa. The purpose of that
statement was to make the American people believe that our government
believed it. But the truth was that our intelligence agencies did not believe
it. In fact, the CIA had successfully pressed the White House to remove
a similar reference from a Presidential speech four months before the
State of the Union address.

This issue about African uranium is not just about sixteen words in a
speech. It is about whether Administration officials made a conscious
decision to create a false impression about the gravity and imminence of
the threat Iraq posed to America. And there is troubling evidence that
the uranium statement was just one of many questionable statements and
exaggerations by the Intelligence Community and Administration
officials in the buildup to the war.

Unless we address the objectivity and reliability of U.S. intelligence
before the Iraq War, our government's warnings about future security
threats will be greeted with skepticism here at home and around the
world. Should the United States conclude, for example, that there is a
significant connection between Iran and al Qaeda, it will be more difficult
to gain the support of the American people and our allies for any
action if they question the credibility of our intelligence.

This is not a partisan political issue. Recently, my Republican
colleague Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, said it is "too serious here, for
this country, to not know what happened. America will want to know what
happened, as the world will. ... Did, in fact, we base our reasons for
going to war on something that was faulty intelligence, or abused
intelligence?" Indeed, that is the very question that must be thoroughly
investigated.

Americans are united in our gratitude that Saddam Hussein's brutal
regime is gone. But unless we can establish -- or if necessary, reestablish
-- the objectivity and reliability of America's intelligence and its
proper use, our national security and our leadership in the world will be
diminished.

Again, thanks for contacting me on this matter. I will keep you views
in mind as the Congress considers this issue.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin

2003-07-25T13:44:00.000-04:00

To: dme48185@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Investigate the Distortion of WMD Evidence
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:05:05 -0400

July 25, 2003

Delon Esshaki
25153 Pierce Street
Southfield, MI 48075

Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me about the search for evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. I share your concerns about this troubling
situation.

The invasion of Iraq represented a historic policy shift for the United
States. For the first time, the U.S. attacked a country because our
government perceived it as an imminent threat to our people. The basis
for this decision was the interpretation of intelligence gathered by
the
Central Intelligence Agency and other government agencies about Iraq's
development and possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). As
you
know, inspectors have not found any evidence of the existence of such
weapons in Iraq. If our intelligence is not accurate, as recent press
reports have suggested, or if the information was shaded or
misrepresented
to the Congress or the American people by the Administration, this is a
serious matter that Congress must thoroughly investigate to ensure the
necessary changes are made to prevent this situation from ever
happening
again. I am pleased that the Senate Intelligence Committee will soon
be
holding bipartisan hearings to look into this matter.

As you may know, I voted against the resolution authorizing a
preemptive
unilateral attack against Iraq because I believed that the case for
such a
war had not been made. My view was shared by the Chairmen of both the
Intelligence and the Armed Services Committees, as well as a majority
of
the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who had thoroughly
reviewed the classified information. I assure you that I will work to
see
that Congress thoroughly investigates this critical issue.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so
again
whenever I may be of assistance to you or your family.

Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

2003-07-24T11:45:00.000-04:00

Did George W. Bush Invade Iraq by Lying?

Why did Bush start a war that:

Has killed more than 200 American servicemen and women, and seriously injured hundreds more
Has killed thousands of Iraq civilians, many of them women and children
Will cost American Tax payers more than $100 Billion, of money desperately needed here at home
Has destroyed America’s credibility around the world
Has already significantly damaged morale, confidence, and the readiness of the US armed forces

Here’s what Bush said:
Bush’s Claim
Reality

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:

- Sarin gas

- Mustard gas

- VX Nerve agent
Not True

Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people
Not True

Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world
Not True

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda

And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11
Not True

Zero Al Qaeda Connection

To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production
Not True

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.
Not True

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Not True

The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003
Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact
Not True

“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq
Not True

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003

2003-07-24T10:34:00.000-04:00

Thank you!
The following information has been emailed
to Senator Levin

PREFIX: Mr.
FIRST: Delon
LAST: Esshaki
SUFFIX:
ADDR1:
ADDR2:
CITY: Southfield
STATE: MI
ZIP: 48075
PHONE:
EMAIL: dme48185@yahoo.com
ISSUE: IR
RSP: Yes
COMMENTS: Dear Mr. Levin I am writing to support you in your effort to find out if we were mislead into war by our president. This is a very serious charge because intelligence on matters of war must be right. We must have confidence in our leaders not to manipulate or cherry pick evidence to support their side. We need a bi-partisan investigation. If the president is exnorated afterwards than that shall be the last word. However an open investigation is essential in this case. I hope you keep fighting the good fight. Thank you Delon Esshaki

2003-07-17T17:47:00.000-04:00

Here's a old e-mail I sent Bill back in March. This one really got me heated.

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:01:19 -0800 (PST)
From: "Delon Esshaki"
Subject: The real Anti-American
To: oreilly@foxnews.com

Bill, I've watched your show for the better part of
three years now. I agree with you some of the time
but you crossed the line when you accused that man
from the Institute of Public Accuracy of rooting for
the enemy. How dare you. That man made a legitamate
point about Fox News reporting of war and thats how
you attack him. I seen the reporting of the chemical
warehouse, Fox did lead viewers into thinking chemical
weapons had been found but that's not the point here.
To suggest that it doesn't matter if the reporting is
accurate is the most disturbing thing I have ever
heard you say. I am disappointed in you. I thought
you were a fair and balanced man. I was wrong. Your
a Inside Edition hack who bullies people and labels
them as anti-American for trying to get to the truth.
I thought thats what you've been seeking the whole
time-the truth. You owe that man an apology on the
air. If you don't apologize to him on the air then
never again will I watch your show and never again
will I defend you. Report the truth. Your spinning
for your own company. Fox has not been fair balanced
in its war coverage and anyone with half a brain can
see that. Americans are not as stupid as you think
they are. We can handle the truth. It's obvious to
me now that you can't.

Sincerely,

Delon
Southfield,MI

2003-07-17T17:40:00.000-04:00

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Delon Esshaki"
Subject: Hypocricy
To: oreilly@foxnews.com

Bill, your driving me crazy. I try my best to defend
you to my liberal friends all the time. They say your
bias and you spin issues. I happen to believe you are
a pretty fair guy. However, what makes me lose faith
in you is when you make remarks like "the American
people don't care about the issue of weapons of mass
destruction, the polls show that." You were
implicating that since the polls show no interest in
the truth than nobady should show interest. Where
were you when the American people didn't care about
Bill Clinton's infedelity yet investigation after
investigation continued. Oh yea you were cheering on
those investigations. Let me tell you something Bill.
I can give a damn about Monica, Paula Jones, Jennifer
Flowers and the countless other women Bill may have
slept with. What I do care about is a President
misrepresenting a threat to this country. I can not
tell you if President Bush purposely mislead us or if
it was someone else in the administration. What I can
tell you is I demand a full investigation in this
matter just like we had in the Clinton years and you
Bill should be leading the charge. I am deeply
troubled by your commentary this past month. You
should be outraged that our President may have mislead
us into a war. I did not sign on to this war for
liberartion. I signed on cause I believed Saddam was
an imminent threat. He was not. The facts are there.
No WMD's, NO Nucluer, and No Bin Laden connection.
How can we A. Ever trust this President again, and B.
Trust our own intelligence.

Where's the OUTRAGE

I thought you were looking out for us

I guess I was wrong

DELON
Southfield,MI 48075

2003-06-19T13:53:00.000-04:00

Where Are The Weapons Jr.?

O.K. lets get this straight. George Jr. refused to give Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors an additional month to find the WMD's back in March. Remember that's what the entire world was asking for, just one more month. No, no, hell no was basically the response for the administration at the time. Now that we have toppled Saddam and taken Iraq over it's been over two months and we have found nothing. Hans Blix had to deal with the Iraqi goverment games. We have full control of the country and unfettered access to all sites yet two months later- NOTHING. Did Jr. mislead us? If he was mislead what does that say about his ability to lead and comb thru bogus intelligence? Can our President be mislead so easily, or was he in on the deception?

I believe is was personal for Jr. Saddam tried to kill his daddy so when he came into office he was focused on eliminating him. Oil contracts for his friends was just a perk. He justifies his actions first by claiming Saddam was a direct threat to this Country. Second, he was linked to Al Queda. Both false. Third, he's an evil tyrant who suppressed his people. Bingo, that is true. However, that was not the basis for military action. That's not what the American people were sold. There are countless tyrants running countries as we speak. If this is our mission than let that be the Bush Doctrine and lets go after all of them. We have to be fair now. Is Iraqi life more precious than Iranian, Syrianian, Korean, Cuban and African life. Nobady wants to go into Africa and free the countless number of countries there. Why not?

Questions need to be answered. Our credibilty as a nation is on the line. We cannot wage war on false or bad information. The world was skeptical when it thought Saddam had weapons. Imagine what they are thinking now.

2003-06-06T14:30:00.000-04:00

I wrote the following on 2-17-2003

Post War Iraq

What will a post-war Iraq look like? Does the Bush Administration have plan? Is removing Saddam a justified battle in the war on terror? If this is our reason for regime change then I submit Iran must be next. Followed by Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, and so on. All these countries either support or harbor terrorist. They make Saddam look like an amateur when it comes to helping Hammas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Queda. Iraq is at the bottom of that list when it comes to support of terrorism. If our primary goal is the war on terror, then why is Saddam the no.1 target? Why aren’t we using the same rhetoric with these other countries, which claim they are friends of ours? Saudi Arabian schools teach its kids that we are the infidels. The Turkish government has murdered thousands of Kurds. Most of the Arab nations send money to suicide bomber families in Palestine. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict should be our no.1 priority. It is the key to stability in the region. The warmongers love to make the point that Iraq has violated 17 U.N. resolutions, he’s had 12 years to comply, he’s gassed his own people, and let’s not forget he’s an evil, evil man. All the above is true, however Israel is in its 35th year of occupation. They continue their settlements in West Bank, and hold curfews on innocent Palestinians. Can you imagine living under military curfew? Yet we expect the Palestinian people to do so with no anger or dismay. Suicide bombing is wrong. No doubt about it, but until you walked in the shoes of desperate people who have no reason to live, are humiliated, there kids shot at by the Israeli military, and are told when they can go outside, you tell me how you would respond. The Palestinians and Israeli’s are at war. Innocent Israelis are being blown up; innocent Palestinians are being shot. We cannot invade Iraq while this situation is at its peak of destruction.
The Bush Administration has compared the situation in Iraq to Afghanistan. Apples and Oranges my friend. The Taliban were an unorganized, poorly armed scattered bunch, hiding in caves. Iraq is a different story. Their army is organized and well armed. Expect hand-to-hand combat in the streets of Baghdad. Saddam will not hesitate to use human shields; strategically placing his armed forces in heavily populated civilian cities. If Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons, believe he will use them on our troops, and his own people. Thousands of innocent Iraqi people will die; and they will blame America first. They will not perceive us as liberators but murderers. This will no way resemble the first Gulf War. This will be bloody, and ugly, and the aftermath unknown. People love to ask me “what if you’re wrong and Saddam has nuclear weapon and he gives those weapons to a terrorist organization to use against us”. I don’t deal in what if scenarios. I deal with reality, and the reality is we will be more at risk for attack here in the United States if Bush goes thru with his plans. He has no exit strategy, which frightens me immensely. We are dealing with an Arab nation. This is not Europe or even Afghanistan for that matter. The Arab people are suspicious of Americans no matter how sincere we perceive to be, because of our support of Israel. That is the most important part here that nobody seems to want to talk about. Our attack will inflame the Arab street and the backlash may be something we are not prepared for.

Who will control Iraq? Will the Kurds form their own state? Will the Sunni’s and Shiite’s live at peace with each other? Will another radical party rise from the ashes to seize control of the country? Will we put in place a ”Puppet Government” like we did in Afghanistan? These are serious questions and I don’t believe Bush has thought this out completely. I believe Bush thinks this will be just like Afghanistan. Big mistake. Iraq is nothing like Afghanistan. We will be to the Iraqi people what the Israelis are to the Palestinians. We will be looked upon as occupiers. Tell the mother of a son who will be killed by cruise missiles hitting Baghdad that we did this to free her from Saddam’s oppression; that her innocent son is just collateral damage in a war for freedom. Do you think she will open her arms to the American soldiers? Iraq will become a mini-Israel. The extremist in the country will form a type of Hammas organization to combat the American Occupiers. Will we respond the way Israel responds? A never-ending cycle of violence, where hatred and death rule.

Here is an excerpt from a book written by George H. Bush Sr. written in 1998 called “A World Transformed”.

“We should not march into Baghdad, to occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition turning the entire Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un winnable guerrilla war. It can only plunge that part of the world into an even greater instability.”

That is one of the better cases to be made against war. Why can’t his son see things the same.

2003-06-05T18:19:00.000-04:00

Trying to find yourself in the toughest times

“It is not the critic who counts…. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly… and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Teddy Roosevelt

2003-06-05T18:14:00.000-04:00

9 Paradoxes of the Presidency

1. Powerful, popular Presidential leadership to solve problems, but suspicious of centralized leadership and abuse of power.

2. Democratic “common person” V.S. the uncommon, charismatic, heroic, and visionary.

3. Decent, just, caring, and compassionate V.S. cunning, guileful, and even ruthless, manipulative.

4. “Above politics”, nonpartisan or bipartisan approach V.S. “political” office requinning, master politician.

5. Unify diverse people and interests V.S. taking firm stands, making unpopular, controversial decisions that upset and divide us.

6. Bold, visionary, innovative, programmatic leadership V.S. pragmatic response to the will of the majority; both to lead and to follow.

7. Powerful, self-confident leadership V.S. suspicion of leaders who view themselves as too sure, infallible above criticism.

8. “What it takes to become President may not be what is needed to govern the nation”.

9. The Presidency is sometimes too strong, sometimes to weak”.

Conclusion:
To govern successfully, Presidents must manage these paradoxes and must balance a variety of competing demands and expectations.

The 20’s compared to the 90’s

1920’s 1990’s

Post World War II Post Cold War

Economy boomed Economy Boomed

Invention of the radio Invention of the Internet

Followed by the Great Depression Followed by the bubble pop

2003-06-05T14:33:00.000-04:00

I wrote the following on 2-10-2003

Iraq
War should be the absolute late resort. However, the use of force should not be taken off the table. The threat of force is directly responsible to the new corporation of Saddam Hussein. When he believes he will be taken out, he starts negotiating. He concedes more and more. Although it is true that full compliance is what is required of him, the lack of this compliance should not directly lead to war. We have 24 hour surveillance in the country thru are satellite images, no-fly zones, and U.N. Inspectors. He is being contained. I call for more inspectors in separate groups. There shouldn’t just be one set of inspectors going place-to-place. There should be a group of three separate inspector teams simultaneously hitting sites around the country. The element of surprise arrival should be used. If these inspectors are not allowed to do their inspections unfettered, then and only then may force be used. Iraq says they have no weapons of mass destructions. They cannot prove a negative, so it is up to us to find these weapons if we believe they have them. This is required for war. The fact that Saddam is a liar does not justify regime change by force. Regime change thru other means besides force would be welcome. Saddam is not an angel. He is an evil dictator who has repressed his people, and no one would be happier to see him removed than me. However, it is not the job of the United States of America to engage in forceful regime change with leaders we don’t like. That is a never-ending war with grave consequences for the United States and the world. We should support the Iraqi opposition to Saddam. The people of Iraq shall choose their own destiny, just like the people of the United States did in our own Civil War. If inspections fail the way I have outlined and Saddam continues with his non-compliance, and every single diplomatic approach has been exhausted, then force shall be used to remove Saddam.

“The Shock and Awe” strategy, as proposed by the State Department, would lob 800 cruise missiles into downtown Baghdad in two days. Less than 300 missiles were launched in the entire “Gulf War”. The plan is to kill as many people as possible the first two days, thus the “Shock”, leading to surrender “Awe” there after. We should do everything in our power to limit civilian casualties. More now then ever. We are fighting a war on terrorism, and part of that war is to win the hearts and minds of the Arab people. Certain people in the Bush Administration don’t seem to understand the major importance in this strategy. Although terrorist can never be justified in it’s attacks on us, we must completely understand why they are attacking, and what lead to such hatred towards us. When a missile hits your town by a foreign force killing your brother, mother, father, son, or daughter, how would you view that foreign force. As liberators or murderers. You think the Arab street will welcome the United States on their soil and praise them for destroying their cities with bombs and missiles, leaving “collateral damage” (a term I deplore) everywhere they walk. This will lead to a new generation of terrorists, thus putting the security of the American people at greater risk. It’s Al Queda stupid. We should remember that. The link between Saddam and Al Queda has not been made. We need to continue our fight on terrorism by working with our allies, not alienating them like Donald Rumsfeld has done with no remorse. Mr. Rumsfeld needs a lesson in diplomacy. You cannot insult your allies when they have a difference of opinion with your policies. The way Rumsfeld has handled Germany and France is deplorable. We need these countries to fight the war on terror. Calling them names only isolates them from us. I am not surprised since the “New Republicans” as I like to call them, seem attack and destroy anyone who doesn’t see the world as they do. It started with Bill Clinton and continues with the Rumsfeld remarks on our allies as “Old Europe”. The Republicans did not like Bill Clinton, so they attacked him not just on his policies but personally as well. They wanted him out of power and were determined to make that happen. For eight years Bill Clinton was investigated, more than any President in the history of this Country. He was called a liar, rapist, and murderer by countless people on the right, day in and day out. All that was ever proved is he was a liar when it came to his infidelity. What a shock, a man lied about an affair. Whenever anyone questions Bush’s international policies they are labeled on the right as unpatriotic or anti-American. I guess calling the President of the United States a rapist and murder with no evidence, constantly, attacking his credibility and leadership is patriotic. Hypocrisy at it’s finest. Thank God the rest and of the World didn’t buy the Republicans act. Bill Clinton was loved and respected around the world. The current President is not. This is what frightens me. Bush says he’s concerned for the Iraqi people. What about the Palestinians, Egyptians, Syrians, Saudi’s, Turks, and so on and so forth. All these people mentioned along with many others are being suppressed. The only difference between them and the Iraqi people is the Government’s of those people are our allies. Mr. President, don’t tell me your concerned about the Iraqi people. If you were, sanctions would be lifted immediately. The biggest mistake Clinton made was not lifting sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, the majority whom being women and children. President Regan himself, blocked a bill in 1988, which called for sanctions on Iraq because he knew the costs of such actions. Sanctions are inhumane. That’s not a partisan issue, it’s a human issue.
We shall not let the rhetoric of the Bush administration desensitize us to war. We cannot and shall not declare war on the entire non-democratic world buy use of force. We shall declare war on the entire non-democratic world thru diplomacy and propaganda. The comparisons with Hitler all but make me laugh. Comparing Saddam to Hitler, does not give justice to Hitler’s evil. Comparing the Baath Party to the Nazi’s is misleading and dangerous. Germany was the most powerful industrialized nation in the world when it began its conquests in the late 1930s and Soviet Russia at its height had the world's largest armed forces and enough nuclear weapons to destroy humankind. Iraq is a third world country that has been under strict military and economic embargo. It’s military is a joke compared to the Nazi military. Iraq also understands that if they do decide to attack any of their neighbors, the world community will not stand for it and they will be driven back and defeated as was the case in Kuwait. So why do we insist on war? What is the real motive? Many claim oil to be the deciding factor pushing the administration. I have a different take. Although oil is a factor, I don’t believe it’s the driving force for this President. After 9-11 the President changed. His actions against the Taliban were completely justified. America was attacked, we knew who did it, and we went and got them. So we thought. Does anybody really believe that the Al Queda has been defeated. They do not have control of Afghanistan that’s for sure, but have they been defeated? The answer is no. They remain stronger than ever and harder to locate. They have cells in many countries around the world, including ours. They are planning attacks on us as we speak. It’s been a year and half since 9-11 and I can honestly assert that we are no safer now, then we were on 9-10-01. I believe the President is on a mission to liberate the entire world. A noble idea, but unrealistic and dangerous. We cannot force are lifestyle on everyone in the world. It is not the job of any nation to take this course. That’s what the Soviet’s tried to do with Communism. That’s what Hitler tried to do with white supremacy. Just because we feel our way of life is better than theirs, does not give us the right to impose it on them. Democracy is the best way, but that’s not the point here. The people shall choose for themselves what they want, and we should respect that. Let’s take a look at North Korea. Here’s a nation who says they have nuclear weapons. So everyone understands this, North Korea’s only cash crop is weapons. They cannot grow food. They need to sell these weapons in order to survive. The dooms day scenario given by the President at the State of the Union address, where terrorists strapped with nuclear weapons would cause millions of deaths is a real concern for this country. Would it be unreasonable to believe that the more likely candidate to give nuclear weapons to terrorists would be North Korea. They have the weapons, Iraq does not. They need to sell the weapons for survival, Iraq does not. They kicked out weapons inspectors from their country, Iraq has welcomed weapons inspectors back. Who is the immediate threat? I hear people like Rush Limbaugh say that the fact that North Korea has told the world they have these weapons, that shows they will not use them. That they are just using it as a deterrence of attack. How naïve is that. So all a country has to do is pronounce to the world that they have nukes and we should believe they will not use them. A weak argument at best. How are we going to know if they have sold them or not? When and if we do find out, it will be too late.

Is WWIII that far away. Will the Iraqi attack be looked at in history, as the catalyst to World War like the assassination of Duke was to WWII? Will the United States be looked at as the aggressor of such a war? North Korea has already stated it can use the policy of pre-emption against the United States aggression, just as we are doing in Iraq. Do you honestly believe Woodrow Wilson would be leading us to war in Iraq. How about Franklin D Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, George Bush Sr., and Bill Clinton. I don’t believe so. The United States of America attacks when attacked. We are not an imperialistic nation. We are a nation of peace, democracy, and freedom. We shall not impose are will on the rest of the world. We shall help those in need, and contain those who threaten us, with war as our last and final option. History is watching; the world is watching. We are the last Super Power. With that title comes responsibility. To the world and to our Nation. We are not a country of warmongers. We a country of peace, that will defend itself when provoked. Questioning are government does not make you anti-American. It’s makes you True American. I profess that blind loyalty to the government is anti-American and dangerous. Where would this country be if we the people didn’t stand up to our government? Didn’t question its policies. History has proven time and time again that we the people, can make a change for the better. The average citizen has a voice, and we shall not be condemned for expressing our thoughts and concerns about our government. Our Government, not George Bush’s Government. That’s the America I know. That’s the America I was brought up to love. We the People, for the People.

2003-05-23T13:26:00.000-04:00

This poem was written by a terminally
ill young girl in a New York Hospital.

SLOW DANCE

Have you ever watched kids

On a merry-go-round?

Or listened to the rain

Slapping on the ground?

Ever followed a butterfly's erratic flight?

Or gazed at the sun into the fading night?

You better slow down.

Don't dance so fast.

Time is short.

The music won't last.

Do you run through each day

On the fly?

When you ask How are you?

Do you hear the reply?

When the day is done

Do you lie in your bed

With the next hundred chores

Running through your head?

You'd better slow down

Don't dance so fast.

Time is short.

The music won't last.

Ever told your child,

We'll do it tomorrow?

And in your haste,

Not see his sorrow?

Ever lost touch,

Let a good friendship die

Cause you never had time

To call and say,"hi"

You'd better slow down.

Don't dance so fast.

Time is short.

The music won't last.

When you run so fast to get somewhere

You miss half the fun of getting there.

When you worry and hurry through your day,

It is like an unopened gift....

Thrown away.

Life is not a race.

Do take it slower

Hear the music

Before the song is over.

2003-05-21T16:47:00.000-04:00

Health Care For All V.S. Tax Cuts For the Rich I wonder how the "moral authority" William Bennett comes down on this issue? Tax cuts of course. I mean its morally wrong that we expect millionaires to pay there share of taxes. I feel so bad for those rich people, why do the Democrats hate them so much. It's not their fault millions of Americans have no health insurance. Maybe those bums should work a little harder ha.

How can Mr. Moral Man justify living in a country where people go broke or just simply die because they got sick and couldn't afford insurance. Don't give me that mumbo jumbo about how tax cuts create jobs. It doesn't work. Rich people have money. They don't need more money to create jobs. If they could or wanted to create jobs they would do so now. It didn't work under Reagan no matter how many times Sean Hannity says it did, and it won't work today. We are one of the last civilized nations that doesn't have universal health care. I would think guarenteed health insurance for all would be an American idea. We should be leading the way on this. Instead Republicans reject this. Why? It boggles my mind that we can spend billions on defense, billions on tax cuts, billions on rebuilding other nations, yet we wont spend what it takes to make sure every man, woman, and child is insured. It's pathetic!!!!!

2003-05-21T16:19:00.000-04:00

It's the Economy Stupid!!When Bill Clinton took office, 10 million Americans were unemployed. In 8 years his administration generated 22.88 million new jobs. That is more than any administration ever. 91 percent of the jobs were in the private sector. 8.2 million Americans, and 4.2 million children were lifted out of poverty. During George Bush Sr., 6.5 million people were pushed into poverty. Under Clinton, a typical American family’s income increased by $7,418 after adjusted inflation. Clinton raised the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15. He raised taxes on income above $250,000 a year from 31% to 39.6%, and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit making 15 million low- wage-working families eligible. He then followed that with a middle-class tax cut in 1997- a $500 per child tax credit.

In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion per year. Clinton doubled financial aid by expanding Pell Grants, establishing educational IRA’s, and creating the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits for college. U.S exports of goods and services grew by 72%. Exports alone supported 1.4 million new American jobs. Clinton reduced the federal working force by 270,000 positions. The smallest since J.F.K. The implementation of the programs stated above resulted in a 281 billion surplus in 2001. A plus $571 billion to national debt during the Clinton years. The ten-year surplus was projected to be 5.6 trillion. Two years into George W. Bush’s Presidency, he lost the entire surplus plus another $165 billion in deficits. The $5.6 trillion projection dropped by $5.3 trillion, leaving a projection of $300 billion.

Bush’s plan is to cut income, dividend, and estate taxes. Poor people pay payroll tax, sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, and property tax; none of which is being cut. 37.6% of the tax cut goes to the wealthiest 1% who will receive $53, 123 per year in tax relief ($1,021 a week). If you earn less than $15,000 a year, you will receive $1.27 a week in tax relief. If you earn between $27,000-$44,000 a year, you will receive $11.54 a week in tax relief. 52.8% of black families and 52.9% of Hispanics will receive no relief since they do not earn enough. Unemployment under Clinton was 3.9%. Under Bush its reached 5.9%. Bush’s tax plan repeals the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax; Ronald Regan signed into law in 1986, which ensures that firms pay a minimum amount of federal income tax despite deductions. His plan is to repeal it retroactively by refunding corporations all the taxes they paid since 1986. This cut would cost $25.4 billion in the first year alone. Bush and the G.O.P. receive $6,270,249 from companies who would benefit from the repeal of the corporate AMT. Below are examples of company’s contribution to the Bush Administration compared to the tax relief these companies will receive if the AMT tax is repealed retroactively.

Bush called for a reduction in capital gains tax from 20%-18%. Bush plans to repeal the estate tax which 2/3 of it is paid by the top 0.21%. The estate tax is a tax paid on inherited money. Bush has no plans to cut payroll tax. 80% of working Americans pay more in payroll tax than income taxes. Bush promised in his campaign that he wouldn’t touch the social security trust fund. The Wall Street Journal uncovered unpublished administration tables that show the government is tapping nearly $500 billion of social security for other programs from 2008-2012. This will add up to $1.8 trillion from social security and $200 billion from Medicare. He then started a commission of 16 people to find an alternative to social security. All 16 members appointed shared the same beliefs about social security that he does prior to there enquires, the belief that social security should be privatized fully if not partially. Surprise, all 16 members backed Bush’s plan.

Specifics of the plan:
Cutting Social Security Benefits
Raising the Retirement Age
Benefits cut, but still cost $1 trillion more

Bush’s plan would allow people to put aside part of their social security (2%) into the stock market if they choose. Wall Street firms could see $86 billion in new investments.

- Paul Begala It's Still the Economy Stupid

2003-05-20T16:38:00.000-04:00

Code Orange is back!!!!!! Here we go again. Asa Hutchinson, you know the bum who asked for Bill Clinton's impeachment before he ever even heard of Monica Lewinski, is in charge, under Tom Ridge of course of homeland security. Don't we all feel safe now. They have just raised the alert to orange due to the attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Oh yea that famous chatter we always here about is up.

Why do we need an alert level? It's the stupidist thing this government has ever tried for this reason. It does nothing, and I mean nothing to make us safer. It's all for political show. Are we more careful today than we were yesturday due to the alert? Are you looking at the Arab at the party store a little diffrent today than you did yesturday? The answer is no. Can we please leave the terrorists nabbing to the FBI and CIA and just eliminate this bogus homeland secruity department. We can be on freakin red alert and nobody will care. Americans react to tradegy, not the assumption that something bad might happen. We could care less until it does happen. A month after 9-11 the country was different. The things we saw as important changed. Then good ol' time passed by with no attack and we returned to our 9-10 form. It's in our human nature. We are the best at moving on. There is not one person I know who can care less about the alert. It doesn't change anything. Only another attack will waken us up for a few months, then we will slip back into our normal routine. Watching American Idol and the Bachelor.

The war on terror will never end. It's a war on evil and those battles have been waged since the beginning of time. Evil will be with us long after the last terror alert. We need to get to the root cause of the hatred toward us. Maybe it's our unconditional support of Isreal. Maybe it's our troops on the sacred land of Saudi Arabia. Maybe it's because were the lone super power. Whatever the reason, alerts do nothing.

2003-05-19T17:05:00.000-04:00

Extremism- The problem with modern day politics and the media. Extreme talk show hosts like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh and the countless other clones in the media I believe has taken it's toll on the American people. The rude, name-calling, shouting over guests, and fake disgust with whom they don't agree with makes for good television and radio in our current times. However, what is happening is these extreme conservative hosts are shaping the way a lot of mainstream Americans feel about politics. People like style and delivery and they like to see outrage. We love confrontation in this country. That's what these hosts offer, so the people listening to them become attached and their ideas become the listeners ideas. The right has pretty much monopolized this genere. Let's take a look at the Hannity and Colmes show on Foxnews. On one side we have Sean Hannity who follows the right wing line 99.9% of the time. I have yet to see him ever take a moderate view on anything. That to me shows his ignorance. Any person with a little common sense knows that one side is not always right and one side is not always wrong. So how can anyone with good consciencous always tow the line of their party. And when someone disagrees with him; his disgusted face pops up and he hammers away about how shameless his guests are and how disgusted he feels that anyone could have a point of view other than his own. On the other side we have Alan Colmes. A left-wing liberal who actually listens to other people's points of view and doesn't tow the party line on every issue. He nevers resorts to name-calling like Sean does. He doesn't belittle the guests whom he doesn't agree with like Sean does. He seems more interested with arging his side instead of mocking the other side. These two men I believe, represent their party's to a tee.

The original Rush Limbaugh. Lets see it's been almost two years now and good ol' Rush still mentions Bill Clinton's name every chance he gets. A little obsessed. All I hear from my conservative friends his get over the Florida election. I'll get over that elections once Rush gets over the blowjob Clinton received. What bothers me is if Clinton were in the White House right now and he made every single move Bush has made, Rush would call for his impeachment. I guarantee it. They would be screaming of no weapons of mass destruction and how he put our soldiers at risk for a lie he perpatrated on the American people. Wag the dog would be the main topic on Fox News for weeks. They would have blamed Clinton for letting Saddam escape, for not securing the museums and stopping the looting. Imagine if Clinton had flown in on aircraft carrier like Bush did. All hell would break loose. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

The Democrats are no better. If it were Clinton in the White House they wouldn't have said a word about going into Iraq. They would have supported it and the republicans would have been against it. It's pathetic if you really think about it. That's why extremism is dangerous and we should do everything we can to listen to the other side on all issues and not think everything we believe in is the Bible.

2003-05-19T14:51:00.000-04:00

Welcome. My name is Delon Esshaki and I will be discussing a whole range of topics. From politics, music, and everyday life issues that concern all of us.