Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

On Halloween, Bush is the Lying Cheerleader

Expand Messages
  • C Hamilton
    A report card for your representatives in Congress http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/congress/ If they voted against the rule of law (for the Military
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31, 2006
      A report card for your representatives in Congress
      If they voted against the rule of law (for the Military Commissions Act)
      you will want to see that they are not elected again as they are no
      friend of your freedoms.
      Bush says they hate us for our freedoms.
      Republican response: take away our freedoms.


      Mrs. Betty Bowers' Halloween / Election Newsletter 2006

      Dear Spooked-Out Voter:

      I'm doing a joint Halloween Night and Election Day newsletter this year
      because, frankly, the two holidays are virtually indistinguishable.
      After all, political campaigning is all about pretending you're
      something you're not -- and then scaring people. Mr. Bush pretends
      he's competent; Mr. Cheney pretends he's sane -- and then they both run
      around our cities trying to frighten strangers.

      The "Vote Because You're Scared!" drumbeat seemed to work well in the
      last election. It certainly worked more than the indolent blowhards we
      elected to the 109th Congress because of it! I fear, however, that such
      an alarmist mantra has lost its appeal and potency now that voters have
      had time to realize that the reason we're scared is because of who we
      voted for in 2000 and 2004.

      Since the GOP has no verifiable successes to tout, I'm rather proud of
      how inventive our latest iteration of the "stick with the incumbent"
      message has been this year.

      In case you haven't picked up on this delicately nuanced sophistry in
      the relentless stream of earnest blather coming every 30 seconds from
      you TV, allow me to break it down for you, dears. The GOP message
      basically boils down to this: We have created a world so unstable and
      hostile with our unbroken string of blunders and unnecessary
      provocations, can you really risk electing someone new who will squander
      two weeks learning the screen-names for all the sluttish pages?

      I have to chuckle at all of the fear-mongering ads this year. No, it's
      not the ubiquitous, bland female voice, which would sound like a hammy
      attempt at "solemn" and "concerned" on the stages of even America's
      least persnickety-at-casting community theaters. And it isn't how often
      she earnestly intones, "Can we really afford to risk electing the other
      guy?" No, what makes me laugh is that congressmen who are throwing
      $200,000,000 each and every day down that insatiable drain called Iraq,
      money that could be spent on schools and health, have the temerity to
      ask us questions that start with "Can we really afford to..."

      Speaking of that imploding, anarchical money pit, when the lights go out
      at a press conference to herald progress in Iraq, you know that crazy
      hellhole is falling apart quicker than Kevin Federline's rap career. As
      such, President Bush (truly the Carrot Top of silly political props) is
      left to chant "Presto Chango" and unveil -- are you ready for it? -- a
      timetable. In a nutshell, this "Timetable for Iraq" is basically
      arbitrary, un-agreed-upon dates when the impossible will not happen.
      While a timetable in Iraq is probably about as useful as a reservation
      in Burger King, it is Mr. Bush's gallantly wistful attempt to make it
      look as if he has actually accomplished something -- anything -- before
      the election. As you may have guessed, this timetable is just as likely
      to be successful after the election as the President's mother's recently
      penned "Timetable to be Smokin' Hot Again."

      Speaking of the ever-charming Bar Bush, this campaign has been unusually
      ugly, hasn't it? But we can't expect an election to be genteel when a
      perfunctory congressional roll call nets more sexual predators than
      Dateline NBC.

      And if we're not being frightened out of our wits that some Negro
      running for Tennessee Senator, Harold Ford Jr., might pick up the phone
      and call a white harlot, we are peeing our drawers that homosexuals may
      one day pick out china together in the sacred department stores of New

      Perhaps the scariest thing about this Halloween evening is that it is
      the last day of the month, and there is still no October Surprise! I
      don't mean to be an alarmist here, but isn't it time Karl Rove climbed
      out from under Jeff Gannon long enough to round up an Islamic coffee
      klatch that knew a man who met a woman who had a niece who once said
      something suspicious about a recipe for exploding hair conditioner -- or
      maybe it was tabouli . . .

      Of course, nature, just like Mrs. Bowers, abhors a vacuum. When the
      Republicans fail to hurt the Democrats, we can always count on the
      Democrats to pull their weight. So, a week before the election the
      relentlessly clumsy John Kerry makes a comment that would seem to impugn
      the same troops that are being supported by magnetic car decals from
      coast to cast.

      Yes, the White House has called on Senator John Kerry to apologize to
      the men and women serving in Iraq because he may have hurt their

      Even if Mr. Bush were wont to admit error, much less apologize, to the
      servicemen in Iraq he hurt, he couldn't.

      They are dead.

      Yes, it had been a sad and scary election year. As a Republican, I'd
      actually be quite scared if America still went through the arduous,
      quaint process of counting votes!


      Bush Lies... and Knows He's Lying
      By Robert Parry
      October 31, 2006

      Many Americans are cynical about what they hear from politicians -- and
      often with good reason -- but perhaps no U.S. political leader in modern
      history has engaged in a pattern of lying and distortion more
      systematically than George W. Bush has.

      Bush's lies also aren't about petty matters, such as some personal
      indiscretion or minor misconduct. Rather his dishonesty deals with
      issues of war and peace, the patriotism of his opponents, and the
      founding principles of the American Republic.

      They are the kinds of lies and distortions more befitting the leader of
      a totalitarian state whipping up his followers to go after some
      perceived enemy than the President of the world's preeminent democracy
      seeking an informed debate among the citizenry.

      For instance, in an Oct. 28 speech in Sellersburg, Indiana, Bush worked
      the crowd into a frenzy of "USA, USA" chants by accusing Democrats of
      not wanting to "detain and question terrorists," not wanting to listen
      in on "terrorist communications," and not wanting to bring terrorists to
      trial -- all gross distortions of Democratic positions.

      Bush has used this same gambit for many years. He characterizes his
      strategies and actions in the most innocuous ways; he then ignores
      honest reasons for disagreement with him; and he characterizes his
      opponents' positions in the most absurd manner possible.

      So, regarding the "war on terror," Bush never mentions the
      constitutional concerns about his strategies or the questions about
      their effectiveness. According to him, his decisions are always benign
      and obvious; those of his opponents border on the crazy and disloyal.

      "When al-Qaeda or an al-Qaeda affiliate is making a phone call from
      outside the United States to inside the United States, we want to know
      why," Bush told the cheering Indiana crowd. "In this new kind of war, we
      must be willing to question the enemy when we pick them up on the

      Referring to the capture of alleged 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh
      Mohammed, Bush said, "when we captured him, I said to the Central
      Intelligence Agency, why don't we find out what he knows in order to be
      able to protect America from another attack."

      Bush then contrasted his eminently reasonable positions with those held
      by the nutty Democrats.

      "When it came time on whether to allow the Central Intelligence Agency
      to continue to detain and question terrorists, almost 80 percent of the
      House Democrats voted against it," Bush said, as the crowd booed the
      Democrats. "When it came time to vote on whether the NSA [National
      Security Agency] should continue to monitor terrorist communications
      through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, almost 90 percent of House
      Democrats voted against it.

      "In all these vital measures for fighting the war on terror, the
      Democrats in Washington follow a simple philosophy: Just say no. When it
      comes to listening in on the terrorists, what's the Democratic answer?
      Just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrat

      Crowd: "Just say no!"

      Bush: "When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrat

      Crowd: "Just say no!"

      Bush: "When it comes to trying terrorists, what's the Democrat's

      Crowd: "Just say no!"

      Bush vs. the truth

      Yet, Bush realizes that the Democrats are not opposed to eavesdropping
      on terrorists, or detaining terrorists, or questioning terrorists, or
      bringing terrorists to trial.

      What Democrats -- and many conservatives -- object to are Bush's
      methods: his tolerance of abusive interrogation techniques; his
      assertion of unlimited presidential authority; his abrogation of habeas
      corpus rights to a fair trial; and his violation of existing laws, such
      as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which already gives the
      President broad powers to engage in electronic spying inside the United
      States, albeit with the approval of a special court.

      Bush's critics argue that all his "war on terror" objectives can be
      achieved without throwing out more than two centuries of American
      constitutional traditions or by violating human rights, such as
      prohibitions against torture. While Bush says Democrats don't want to
      try terrorist, their real complaint about his Military Commissions Act
      of 2006 comes from its denial of habeas corpus for non-citizens and its
      vague wording that could apply its draconian provisions to American
      citizens as well.

      Bush's defenders may argue that the President was just using some
      oratorical license in the Indiana stump speech. But all the points he
      made to the crowd, he also has expressed in more formal settings.

      The distortions also fit with Bush's long pattern of slanting the truth
      or engaging in outright lies when describing his adversaries, both
      foreign and domestic.

      Yet Bush is almost never held to account by a U.S. news media that seems
      almost as cowed today as it was when Bush misled the nation into the
      Iraq War or -- after the invasion -- when he lied repeatedly, claiming
      that he had no choice but to invade because Saddam Hussein had barred
      U.N. weapons inspectors from Iraq.

      Even when acknowledging that Bush's statements often turn out to be
      false, his defenders say it's unfair to call him a liar. They say he's
      just an honest guy who gets lots of bad information.

      False talking points

      But there comes a point when that defense wears thin. The evidence
      actually points to a leader who wants his subordinates to give him a
      steady supply of "talking points" that can be used to achieve his goals
      whether the arguments are true, half true or totally false.

      How else can anyone explain why the most expensive intelligence system
      in history acted in 2002-03 like a kind of backward filter in processing
      evidence about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and Saddam
      Hussein's purported ties to al-Qaeda.

      The CIA's reverse analytical filter consistently removed the nuggets of
      good information -- when they undercut Bush's positions -- and let
      through the dross of misinformation.

      In September 2006, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report
      that detailed how the U.S. intelligence community surrendered its duty
      to provide the government with accurate data and instead gave the Bush
      administration what it wanted to hear.

      The committee concluded that nearly every key assessment as expressed in
      the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's WMD was wrong:
      "Postwar findings do not support the [NIE] judgment that Iraq was
      reconstituting its nuclear weapons program; ... do not support the [NIE]
      assessment that Iraq's acquisition of high-strength aluminum tubes was
      intended for an Iraqi nuclear program; ... do not support the [NIE]
      assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and
      yellowcake' from Africa; ... do not support the [NIE] assessment that
      'Iraq has biological weapons' and that 'all key aspects of Iraq's
      offensive biological weapons program are larger and more advanced than
      before the Gulf war'; ... do not support the [NIE] assessment that Iraq
      possessed, or ever developed, mobile facilities for producing biological
      warfare agents; ... do not support the [NIE] assessments that Iraq 'has
      chemical weapons' or 'is expanding its chemical industry to support
      chemical weapons production'; ... do not support the [NIE] assessments
      that Iraq had a developmental program for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
      'probably intended to deliver biological agents' or that an effort to
      procure U.S. mapping software 'strongly suggests that Iraq is
      investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the United

      The Senate Intelligence Committee also concluded that the Bush
      administration's claims about the supposed relationship between the
      Iraqi government and al-Qaeda were bogus. Rather than cooperating with
      Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as the Bush administration has
      claimed for the past four years, it turned out that the Iraqi government
      was trying to arrest Zarqawi.

      But the creation of the bogus Saddam Hussein-Osama bin Laden link was
      not accidental. According to the committee report, the misinformation
      came via an administration mandate to cast every shred of information in
      the harshest possible light.

      That systemic bias was revealed in the guidelines for a CIA paper
      produced in June 2002, entitled "Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a
      Murky Relationship."

      The CIA study was designed to assess the Iraqi government's links to
      al-Qaeda. But the analysts were given unusual instructions, told to be
      "purposely aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumption
      that any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements
      could carry great dangers to the United States."

      A former CIA deputy director of intelligence told the Senate
      Intelligence Committee that the paper's authors were ordered to "lean
      far forward and do a speculative piece." The deputy director told them,
      "if you were going to stretch to the maximum the evidence you had, what
      could you come up with."

      In other words, the CIA analysts set out to hype any evidence of
      possible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. So, if some piece of
      information contained even a remote possibility of a connection, the
      assumption had to be that the tie-in was real and substantive.

      When Zarqawi snuck into Baghdad for medical treatment, therefore, the
      assumption could not be that the Iraqi authorities were unaware of his
      presence or couldn't find him; it had to be that Saddam Hussein knew all
      about it and was collaborating with Zarqawi.

      This practice of assuming the worst -- rather than attempting to gauge
      likelihoods as accurately as possible -- guaranteed the kind of slanted
      and even fanciful intelligence reports that guided the United States to
      war in 2002-2003.

      What Bush wanted

      But what is equally clear from the Senate report is that the U.S.
      intelligence community was giving Bush exactly what he wanted so he
      could present a litany of alleged grievances that would justify an
      unprovoked invasion. Even after the falsity of the intelligence was
      known, Bush gave CIA Director George Tenet, the bureaucrat who oversaw
      this perversion of intelligence, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the
      highest honor that can be bestowed on an American civilian.

      This pattern of slanting information about Iraq also has not stopped. It
      continues to the present day.

      For instance, one of Bush's favorite arguments in his stump speeches is
      that the Democrats are playing into Osama bin Laden's hands by seeking a
      U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

      "In Washington, the Democrats say [Iraq is] not a part of the war
      against the terrorists, it's a distraction." Bush told that crowd in
      Sellersburg, Indiana. "Well, don't take my word for it -- listen to
      Osama bin Laden. He has made it clear that Iraq is a central part of
      this war on terror. He and his number two man, Zawahiri have made it
      abundantly clear that their goal is to inflict enough damage on innocent
      life and damage on our own troops so that we leave before the job is

      But that isn't what the latest intelligence on al-Qaeda's goals shows.
      Indeed, U.S. intelligence has intercepted communiqués from al-Qaeda
      leaders to Zarqawi in 2005 that actually reveal their alarm at the
      possibility of a prompt U.S. military withdrawal and their goal of
      "prolonging the war" by keeping the Americans bogged down in Iraq.

      In a Dec. 11, 2005, letter, a senior al-Qaeda leader known as "Atiyah"
      lectured Zarqawi on the need to take the long view and build ties with
      elements of the Sunni-led Iraqi insurgency that had little in common
      with al-Qaeda except hatred of the Americans.

      "The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness
      and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength,
      clarity of justification, and visible proof each day," Atiyah wrote.
      "Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest." [Emphasis added.]

      The "Atiyah letter," which was discovered by U.S. authorities at the
      time of Zarqawi's death on June 7, 2006, and was translated by the U.S.
      military's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, also stressed the
      vulnerability of al-Qaeda's position in Iraq.

      "Know that we, like all mujahaddin, are still weak," Atiyah told
      Zarqawi. "We have not yet reached a level of stability. We have no
      alternative but to not squander any element of the foundations of
      strength or any helper or supporter."

      Atiyah's worries reiterated concerns expressed by bin Laden's deputy
      Ayman al-Zawahiri in another intercepted letter from July 7,
      2005. In that letter, Zawahiri fretted that a rapid U.S. pullout could
      cause al-Qaeda's operation in Iraq to collapse because foreign
      jihadists, who flocked to Iraq to fight Americans, would give up the
      fight and go home.

      "The mujahaddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of
      the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence
      the fighting zeal," wrote Zawahiri, according to a text released by the
      U.S. Director of National Intelligence.

      To avert mass desertions, Zawahiri suggests that Zarqawi talk up the
      "idea" of a "caliphate" along the eastern Mediterranean.

      What al-Qaeda leaders seem to fear most is that a U.S. military
      withdrawal would contribute to a disintegration of their fragile
      position in Iraq, between the expected desertions of the foreign
      fighters and the targeting of al-Qaeda's remaining forces by Iraqis
      determined to rid their country of violent outsiders. In that sense, the
      longer the United States remains in Iraq, the deeper al-Qaeda can put
      down roots and the more it can harden its new recruits through
      indoctrination and training. These intercepted letters also fit with
      last April's conclusion by U.S. intelligence agencies that the U.S.
      occupation of Iraq has proved to be a "cause celebre" that has spread
      Islamic radicalism around the globe.

      Bush surely knows all this, but he also appears confident that he can
      continue to sell a distorted interpretation of the evidence to a
      gullible U.S. public. Basically, it appears that the President believes
      that the American people are very stupid.

      Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty
      from Watergate to Iraq."

      © 2006 Independent Media Institute.


      Bush The Cheerleader
      by Ray McGovern
      October 30, 2006

      Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst from the administrations of John F.
      Kennedy to George H. W. Bush. He now works with Tell the Word, the
      publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington,

      When President George W. Bush was asked at his news conference last
      Wednesday whether we are winning in Iraq, he answered, "Absolutely;
      we're winning." The disingenuousness was almost enough to provoke
      sympathy for the beleaguered president as he lived through another bad
      week with further diminished credibility.

      A letter winner in cheerleading at Andover and Yale, the president knows
      how tough it is to keep spirits up when it becomes clear that his team
      is not winning, but the bedlam in Iraq has become the supreme test. Some
      of his fellow cheerleaders have quit cheering, and even the Fox News
      Channel is having trouble putting on a brave front.

      And small wonder. For example, on October19 USA Today put the main
      challenge succinctly:

      The mistaken war and botched aftermath have created such a mess that the
      only credible course change must be predicated on this painful question:
      Is there an achievable goal that makes the further sacrifice of American
      lives worthwhile? With each passing day, that is looking less and less
      likely. ... What, exactly, is the goal that U.S. forces are fighting and
      dying for?

      Is it to referee a civil war in Iraq? At the press conference Bush said:

      Our job is to prevent the full-full-scale civil war from happening in
      the first place. It is one of the missions, is to work with the Maliki
      government to make sure that there is a political way forward that says
      to the people of Iraq, It's not worth it. Civil war is not worth the
      effort-by them...And so we will work to prevent that from happening.

      Is that it? Or is it, as the president let slip, to prevent "terrorists
      or extremists in Iraq [from gaining] access to vast oil reserves" in
      Iraq and denying them to the U.S. How often were we told that oil had
      "nothing to do with it!"?

      The president did say that too many children "won't ever see their mom
      and dad again," and that he owes it "to them and to the families who
      still have loved ones in harm's way to ensure that their sacrifices are
      not in vain."

      He owes to people like the family of Jeremy Shank. In a small town in
      Missouri last month, Rev. Carter Frey eulogized young Shank, who was
      killed while on patrol in Iraq. Frey stressed that Shank was one of
      those who "put themselves in harm's way and paid the ultimate sacrifice
      so that you and I can have freedom to live in this country."

      Really? Many patrols like the one Shank was on appear to be aimed at
      stopping Shia and Sunni from killing each other-stopping what the
      president calls "full-scale civil war." Two months ago Bush's national
      security adviser Stephen Hadley told the press, "It's no longer about
      insurgency, but sectarian warfare." Is that what Jeremy Shank and other
      young men and women are paying the ultimate sacrifice-or the penultimate
      one of living the rest of their lives without arms or legs?

      What else could be their purpose? To continue the pursuit of evidence of
      weapons of mass destruction or ties between Iraq and al-Qaida? Or is it
      really, as the Bush administration suggests, to bring freedom and
      democracy to Iraq and the wider Middle East? Really? How long will we
      let our young soldiers be mocked and used? How long will we allow
      President Bush to treat them as disposable soldiers-like toys a rich kid
      gets for Christmas?

      Time To Bring Them Home

      There are basically two choices: (1) "stay the course" (or the same
      concept with a more felicitous label); or (2) withdraw. Let's look at
      them both:

      (1) Those of us who have "been there, done that" know what is meant by
      "stay the course"-or whatever updated formulation the Bush
      administration uses that implies action short of withdrawal. Its name is
      Vietnam. It means more violence month by month-as we have witnessed
      recently-until there are 50,000 more of our young troops, and a million
      more Iraqis, dead. From the president's own words we know his intention
      is to keep our troops in Iraq until the end of his term. A year or two
      later, our helicopters will be lifting the remainder of the American
      presence in Iraq off the rooftops of the billion-dollar embassy we are
      now building in the Green Zone. The name is Vietnam. It is a no-brainer
      for anyone who knows the first thing about "insurgency"-or, more
      properly, resistance to foreign occupation. More and more

      (2) Withdrawal: It is more difficult to predict what will happen if we
      withdraw our troops from Iraq over the next year or so. A lot depends on
      how we go about it. The steps outlined below, the result of
      brainstorming with my colleagues with Veteran Intelligence Professionals
      for Sanity (VIPS) and others, would in my view hold the promise of much
      less violence and killing:

      (a) Show a modicum of respect for the opinions of the Iraqi people,
      two-thirds of whom want U.S. forces out of Iraq immediately, according
      to a recent poll commissioned by our Department of State. It seems the
      height of hubris and incongruity for U.S. officials to pretend, as they
      do, that they know far better what would be best for the Iraqis. Another
      poll had 60 percent of the Iraqi people saying they would shoot an
      American on sight, if they had the opportunity.

      (b) Publicly disavow any intention of having permanent-or as the
      Pentagon now prefers to say "enduring"-military bases in Iraq.

      (c) Publicly disavow any intention of having special rights over the oil
      under the sands of Iraq. (These last two steps will be difficult for the
      Bush administration, since those aims formed the bulk of the motivation
      for attacking and occupying Iraq.)

      (d) TALK. Yes, talk. It is bizarre that the Bush administration does not
      let the State Department talk with "evil" forces-like North Korea, Iran,
      Hamas, Hezbollah and (perish the thought) "insurgents" in Iraq. If
      Ronald Reagan could talk with the Evil Empire, and conclude very
      important arms control and other agreements, surely the George W. Bush
      administration can engage resistance forces in Iraq. The Arab League
      states have shown themselves eager to facilitate such discussions.
      Indeed, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did precisely that in October
      2005, when he invited all interested states and factions to a meeting in
      Cairo. The U.S. boycotted those talks, and made it difficult for its
      clients in Baghdad to attend.

      Following these four steps would attenuate the violence and damage that
      can be expected, however well-planned our withdrawal. Most importantly,
      then-and only then-we can expect the Arab League countries, the United
      Nations, the Western Europeans, Indians, Pakistanis and others to do
      what they can to facilitate our withdrawal with as much grace as can be
      mustered at that point. Why? Because they like us? No; we have frittered
      away the strong support rendered us in the wake of
      9/11. They will help because most of them have even more interest than
      we in a more stable Iraq-and just as much interest as we in the oil

      Bottom line: It seems virtually certain that there will be more violence
      in "staying the course." That being the case, it can no longer be a
      moral decision to say, in effect: Let's let those kids from the inner
      cities and the farms stay the course for us; who knows, maybe they'll be

      I cannot resist the temptation to recall that all of this was entirely
      predictable-and predicted. Almost exactly a year ago we took strong
      issue with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's insistence that the war
      in Iraq was "winnable." We noted at the time that "most of those with a
      modicum of experience in guerrilla warfare and the Middle East are
      persuaded that the war is NOT winnable and that the only thing in doubt
      is the timing of the U.S. departure."

      When will they ever learn; when will they ever learn?


      Halloween project: turn a pumpkin into a computer

      You too can join in those lively internet debates

      NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
      Agency (NSA) and FISA laws may have been ignored, and this email read
      and placed in your file without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do
      this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no
      recourse, nor protection from this intrusion on your personal freedoms.
      You may not review your file which is secret. The President reserves the
      right to use "signing statements" to give himself permission to ignore
      the law, as he is above accountability. As Nixon said, "If the president
      does it, it is not illegal." If you are not with us, you are for the
      terrorists; be aware that dissent is considered sedition: resistance to
      lawful authority. It may be considered treason to question authority; as
      it is un-American and unpatriotic to criticize the actions of your
      President. You could be designated as giving material support to the
      enemy, subject to indefinite incarceration without charges or trial,
      under Republican law.

      Note: a Federal court has ordered the Bush administration to stop the
      illegal warrentless spying, handing down 30 felony convictions. The
      illegal activity continues during an appeal, Bush says he has the right
      to ignore US and International laws. Note: The Supreme Court has ruled
      that Bush policies violated US and International laws. That could mean
      a trial for war crimes if justice follows that verdict. Note: the
      Republican Congress has passed a law to allow torture, and retroactively
      clear Bush of war crimes. The Congress has not held Bush accountable
      starting and losing two illegal unnecessary wars.

      George Soros interview on Fox...(video links)
      War on Terror is doing more harm than good...

      C Hamilton
      a moderator of
      adult humor/opinion/pictures

      If you want to change what your government is doing,
      contact those who are acting in your name:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.