The Media Plays Along With Powerful Interests

The Media Plays Along With Powerful Interests

Impeach Bush Before He Attacks Iran

Bush is not fit to be Commander in Chief
Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous

Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous

GEN. WESLEY CLARK SAYS BUSH ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO ATTACK SEVERAL MORE COUNTRIES:

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

Iraq Oil Law: A War For Oil Pays Off For Some

Iraq Oil Law: A War For Oil Pays Off For Some

Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."

Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."

Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."

"Wiped off the Map" - The Rumor of the Century

"There is no new policy," Ahmadinejad said. "They created a lot of hue and cry over that." Ahmadinejad added, "It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."

let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said

About Israel:
What has been confirmed by human rights groups has also been observed directly by journalists.

Israel Does Target Civilians and Always Has

Israeli Terror

Fabricated Bellicose Statements

see another video on this: The "wipe Israel off the map" Hoax

President Ahmadinejad was talking about the occupying regime which is a form of government. On Feb 20, 2006 Iran's foreign minister said, "He is talking about the regime."

President Ahmadinejad also said in his speech that the issue with Palestine would be over "the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power."

In his letter to Bush (see Text of Iranian President's Letter to President Bush), he asks, "are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands - inside and outside Palestine - whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets?"

President Ahmadinejad Calls for Democracy, Free and Fair Elections and a Durable Peace.

Mike Wallace Interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on 60 Minutes. At the request of the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, the FULL UNEDITED version was shown on C-SPAN. "The cable public affairs net will air the 60 Minutes edited version, followed by the full 90-minute interview, to give viewers a window on what is left on the cutting room floor." - John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/11/2006
We can see what they cut out, a call for democracy.

Please read these links, don't let them trick us into another war:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060623.htm
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/04/off-table-bombing-iran-is-not-only.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

Young Journalists and Budding Intellectuals

Young Journalists and Budding Intellectuals

Eric Alterman reveals, "I went to a forum for Jewish student journalists last week ... Ruth R. Wisse said quite a few things I found amazing. One was instructing these young journalists and budding intellectuals that they should think of themselves as a kind of adjunct to the Israeli army and ignore all intellectual distinctions, issues of personal honesty, moral complications, etc., and just defend Israel against its attackers. It reminded me of the time that Norman Podhoretz insisted, years ago, that "the role of Jews who write in both the Jewish and general press is to defend Israel," period. Talk about your dual loyalties. Talk about your intellectual dishonesty. ... Scary that these kids were hearing this stuff from a Harvard professor.

... Also amazing, I thought, was Wisse's contention that Commentary is the most influential Jewish magazine in history. ... Take a look at the magazine right now. ... last month it published Amir Taheri, here, who is the guy who made up that false report about Iranian Jews being forced to wear yellow stars. I don't feel like going into all the arguments these articles imply and the terrible things they imply about a group of Jewish propagandists-posing-as-intellectuals, but given the fact that for literally decades, Commentary was probably the single best magazine in America -- I read every issue of every good magazine from the 1945-50 period for what was going to be a doctoral thesis, and it certainly was then -- it's beyond sad. More significantly, however, isn't this just the kind of thing anti-Semites accuse Jews of saying and doing? If I were the kind of person to attribute the actions of a few to an entire ethnic group -- and were not a member of that group myself -- I swear, this kind of thing would get me thinking unkosher thoughts about the people that the racist Murray insists are God's Chosen People. " - Eric Alterman

Fabricated Bellicose Statements

Fabricated Bellicose Statements

"Many details are provided by Kennett Love, who was then the Middle East correspondent of the New York Times. He describes, for example, how the Times failed to publish his interview with Nasser in which Nasser offered to demilitarize the frontier: "distorted versions of Nasser's effort to pacify the frontier were splashed across New York's front pages under headlines representing him as a warmonger," including a Times report stating that "Many neutrals say Premier Nasser's statement [on demilitarizing the frontier] was bellicose and is certain to increase tension." Two days after the Times killed Nasser's interview it ran a front-page headline, based on distorted news agency versions of the interview, which read: "Gaza War Threat Voiced by Egypt." The aggressors themselves at the same time were attributing fabricated bellicose statements to Nasser, taking earlier writings of his out of context and grossly changing their sense, etc. The distortions of Western propaganda, which in this case reflect a remarkable degree of moral cowardice quite apart from the falsification of the facts, remained effective even after the outright aggression by Israel, France and England. In particular, it is still widely held that Israel's aggression was in fact defensive, at worst a "preemptive strike" in response to Nasser's threats. The incident is an example - one of many - of how facts can be overwhelmed by a powerful propaganda system employing the "free press" as its instrument." Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, p.101

Why Do They Do This?

A very popular website keeps insisting that the World Trade Center was brought down by Controlled Demolition. On that site they show you a picture of a steel column that has been cut. But the steel column was cut by an ironworker during the clean up. You can see a cut just like it being made by an iron worker during the clean up of the WTC at this link. (scroll down when you go to the page) Also look at NIST's FAQ page and WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory and Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."

Someone Sent Me a Fraudulent Video Trying to Prove Controlled Demolition

Someone Sent Me a Fraudulent Video Trying to Prove Controlled Demolition

See the report for yourself:
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

See NIST's FAQ:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire

"Contrary to popular belief, September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing." - debunking911.com

Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700 Degrees to 900 Degrees Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230 Degrees Celsius, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750 Degrees Celsius.

All steels lose strength with increasing temperature. By 600 Degrees Celsius, most structural steels have lost more than half their strength. At intermediate temperatures the strength is independent of time, but above 500 Degrees Celsius, creep, or time-dependent deformation, further reduces the load-carrying capability. To combat this loss of load-carrying capability, structural steel in buildings is insulated to keep it cool in fire.

NIST is very clear:

"the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

"Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because:
(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and
(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower."

"NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

* the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

* the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."

See:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Engineer said the Twin Towers were in Danger of Collapse

Engineer said the Twin Towers were in Danger of Collapse

"At 9:46, the Chief of Department called an additional fifth alarm, and at 9:54
an additional 20 engine and 6 ladder companies were sent to the WTC. As a
result, more than one-third of all FDNY companies now had been dispatched
to the WTC. At about 9:57, an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of
Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked
that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse."
- p302 The 9/11 Commission Report

(The South Tower collapsed at 9:59)

President Bush lied about Saddam and al-Qaida being "allies"

President Bush lied about Saddam and al-Qaida being "allies"

"The President's decision to ignore intelligence community assessments
prior to the Iraq war and to make repeated public statements that gave
the misleading impression that Saddam Hussein's regime was
connected to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 cost him any
credibility he may have had on this issue.
President Bush said Saddam and al-Qaida were allies--his words. And
that: "You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam when you
talk about the war on terror."

The bipartisan report released today directly contradicts that
linkage which the President has consistently made in his effort to
build public support for his Iraq policy.
The bipartisan committee report finds that the prewar intelligence
assessments were right when the intelligence community said Saddam and
al-Qaida were independent actors who were far from being natural
partners. The report finds that prewar intelligence assessments were
right when they expressed consistent doubts that a meeting occurred
between 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence
official in Prague prior to September 11. Our report finds that prewar
intelligence assessments were right when they said there was no
credible reporting on al-Qaida operatives being trained in Iraq. Those
were the two principal arguments which were used prior to the war to
support the alleged linkage between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
The accurate prewar intelligence assessments didn't stop the
administration from making many false and misleading statements trying
to link Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida." - INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE PHASE II REPORT

Tanya Reinhart RIP

The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003



Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, 2nd ed.


democracynow.org


"She was one of the most courageous and honorable defenders of human rights whom I have ever been privileged to meet. As all honest people should, she focused her attention and energy on the actions of her own state and society, for which she shared responsibility – including the responsibility, which she never shirked, to expose crimes of state and to defend the victims of repression, violence, and conquest. Her numerous articles and books drew away the veil that concealed criminal and outrageous actions, and shone a searing light on the reality that was obscured, all of immense value to those who sought to understand and to react in a decent way. Her activism was not limited to words, important as these were. She was on the front line of direct resistance to intolerable actions, an organizer and a participant, a stance that one cannot respect too highly. She will be remembered not only as a resolute and honorable defender of the rights of Palestinians, but also as one of those who have struggled to defend the moral integrity of her own Israeli society, and its hope for decent survival." -

In Memory of Tanya Reinhart Noam Chomsky

Recommended Reading: Understanding Power

Recommended Reading: Understanding Power

"When President Bush and U.S. officials announced that 'America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world,' the mainstream media in the U.S. mostly echoed the refrains. ... Glaringly missing from the U.S. media's coverage was a full and realistic account of U.S. foreign policy and its effects around the world."
- Understanding Power, pxiii

To Stop Foreign Policy in Our Land

Very few news outlets in America quoted the words I highlighted
in Khalid Shaikh Mohammed recent statement (One quoted the sentence, and two small TV station's websites that refered to "in our land"): "I don't like to kill people.
I feel very sorry they been killed kids in 9/11," he said, according to
an unclassified transcript the Pentagon released. "What I will do? This
is the language. Sometime I want to make great awakening between American
to stop foreign policy in our land. I know American people are torturing
us from seventies."

Both Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden wanted to attack the US mainly
for the US government's support of Israel.

With Osama bin Laden making public staments about the same greivances that Khalid
Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Ahmed Yousef had, it only makes sense for Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed to approach bin Laden for funding the operation. Bin Laden praised
what Ramzi Ahmed Yousef did, he had said he didn't know Yousef but he approved
of what Yousef did.

The 1993 attack was led by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nephew, Ramzi Ahmed
Yousef. We already knew that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sent Yousef some money for
the 1993 attack.

So why wouldn't Khalid Shaikh Mohammed want to work with bin Laden?

"Bin Laden approved funding for Mohammed's plot in late 1998 or early
1999."

We already knew that a few years after that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed got funding
from bin Laden for the 2001 attack.

"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt
guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden
by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef
said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence
could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed
his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S.
policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight
and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve
Coll, Ghost Wars p273

The 1993 terrorists sent a letter to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing
attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on
the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American
political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism
and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

plotter of 9/11

"After he was captured in Pakistan in early 2003, he told his interrogators
that although he had developed no special complaint about America in his years
here, he [ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ] felt strongly that U.S. support of Israel
was wrong and could be corrected by attacking the United States,""
reports Los Angeles Times writer Terry McDermott.*

"... in an early version of the Sept. 11 plot, he [ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
] proposed flying one of the hijacked planes himself, landing it in the United
States and, after killing all the men aboard, making a speech urging America
to change its Middle East policies."

The 9/11 Commission reported on the motive of the "mastermind of the Sept.
11 attacks." On page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it says "By
his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States
stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from
his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel. ""

Bin Laden has said, "We swore that America wouldn't live in security
until we live it truly in Palestine . This showed the reality of America, which
puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't
get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until
it stops its support of Israel."

That fits with what Khalid Shaikh Mohammed just said: "Usama bin Laden,
he did his best press conference in American media. Mr. John Miller he been
there when he made declaration against Jihad, against America. And he said it
is not no need for me now to make explanation of what he said but mostly
he said about American military presence in Arabian peninsula and aiding Israel
and many things.

and this:

"I don't like to kill people. I feel very sorry they been killed kids
in 9/11," he said, according to an unclassified transcript the Pentagon
released. "What I will do? This is the language. Sometime I want to
make great awakening between American to stop foreign policy in our land.
I know American people are torturing us from seventies."

From the Bin Laden-Miller interview which Khalid Shaikh Mohammed refered to:

"the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general
and Muslims in particular. ... The Americans started it and retaliation and
punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially
when women and children are involved. Through history, American has not been
known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men
and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the
weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans.
Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children?
America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples.
Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful.
America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world
today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except
perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military
or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what
the fatwah says. ... The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes
all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims."

(*CNN omited what I put in bold, see: CNN
games) and link

See:
Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they
hate us.

Democrats Risk War with Iran to Serve Israel's Agenda

Democrats Risk War with Iran to Serve Israel's Agenda

"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy."

"Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy."

"The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran." - Dems won't attempt to limit Bush's authority to attack Iran

Write your representatives and tell them you don't want an illegal war with Iran for Israel:

and tell them that Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."

Contact Your Representative
Contact Your Senator
Contact the Whitehouse
Contact the Media

The Iraq War was Illegal

Q: Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law? A: Yes, the Iraq War was Illegal.


Army chiefs feared Iraq war illegal just days before start

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal Blair's defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Ketchup is Vegetarian

Ketchup is Vegetarian

Are you trying to fuck me?

Are you trying to fuck me?

"Frank," said the early-morning wake-up call, "are you trying to fuck me?" [Frank Stanton was then the president of CBS.]

"Who is this?" said the still sleepy Stanton.

"Frank, this is your President, and yesterday your boys shat on the American flag," Lyndon Johnson said, and then administered a tongue lashing: how could CBS employ a Communist like Safer, how could they be so unpatriotic as to put on enemy film like this? Johnson was furious. ... (Johnson was insisting that Safer was a Communist, and when aides said no [after also getting to check him out in depth], he was simply a Canadian, the President said, "Well, I knew he wasn’t an American.") - David Halberstam, The Powers That Be, 490

As if it needs to be pointed out, it is totally inappropriate for the President of the United States to call people up like this and chew them out. It is threatening to have the President curse you out for exercising your rights as an American citizen.

I found this quote on this page:
Media, Propaganda and Vietnam

A Built-in Bias Against the Interests of Ordinary People

A Built-in Bias Against the Interests of Ordinary People
""Constructing Public Opinion" demonstrates the way in which political elites help to promote the military industrial complex."

Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map. "

Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."

Here is Ahmadinejad's actual quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Pundits and politicians are telling falsehoods which manipulate the public into accepting a confrontation with Iran. Either out of ignorance or by intention, pundits and politicians are actively helping to create a confrontation with Iran. (most are probably regurgitating what they heard from news sources which falsely reported what Ahmadinejad said.) They are manipulating public opinion by misrepresenting what he said. As you can see, Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."

"The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about." - Ahmadinejad never said Israel should be "wiped off the map".

President Ahmadinejad was talking about the occupying regime which is a form of government. On Feb 20, 2006 Iran's foreign minister confirmed what Ahmadinejad was actually referring to, "He is talking about the regime."

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly made clear he is talking about a democratic political process being the way the regime will vanish:

"I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met."

[The words highlighted in red were omitted from the 60 Minutes interview. This omission is another example of how mainstream media is manipulating the public.]

Ahmadinejad has been explicate about how he thinks the regime will vanish and it is clear he is talking about a political process and not an attack as many in the mainstream media would like you to believe: "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated."

"Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements." - a dangerous rumor has spread

Someone at the Associated Press altered this quote, what the AP did is "irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP altered the quote to sound more threatening."

A Chill Descended on the Gathering

A Chill Descended on the Gathering

I have wondered about this before, how much has the so called pro-Israel or Zionist agenda undermined the anti-war movement?

Peter Bart writes about "emerging fissures" within Hollywood's anti-war political movement:

"The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close."

Peter Bart continues, "Support for Israel in the U.S. has lately become bafflingly multi-cultural, representing an alliance between diaspora Jews, traditional Zionists and evangelicals."

Bart also points out that, "The Economist observed ... only 17% of American Jews today regard themselves as "pro-Zionist," ... and only 57% say that "caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish.""

By the way, Edwards is exactly right, this is the greatest short-term threat to world peace. Shame on those in his audience who don't pause for a second to review the issue. They arrogantly assume that the Jewish State of Israel can do no wrong and in doing so they put Americans at risk.

Bart warns, "Given that the Christian Right and neo-conservatives in this country seem more obsessed with Israel than the Jewish community, the "I" word is becoming a potentially lethal component of today's political dialogue. The Middle East crisis represents just one of the issues that could splinter the formidable anti-Bush sentiment in the entertainment community."

Avert a Potential Crisis of Horrific Proportions

Kevin,

I see you, like me, are worried about what Bush may do next. At this point, the possibility of President Bush starting a war with Iran is so tangible that I don't see many, if any, people dismissing it out of hand.

In mainstream media, we hear from pundits talking about the likelihood of Bush attacking Iran yet only those pundits who omit mentioning it would violate international law and our Constitution get chosen to be on TV.

I agree with you that we must take the sane approach. Leaving Bush in power with the idea in his head that he has a right to attack Iran is DANGEROUS and could cost the lives of God knows how many Americans, let alone other people in the world.

We are in such a DANGEROUS situation right now that we must do more that advocate what Bush shouldn't do. We must prevent him from doing with with all our might, our very lives are at risk because of this insanity.

Bush must be impeached in order to prevent him from damaging our security and needlessly getting who knows how many more Americans killed. It is past time to put a stop to this self declared "War President." The man has proven that he is not fit to be Commander in Chief. As unimaginable as it sounds, three times now he has made it clear that he doesn't even know why he attacked Iraq. Contrary to the perception of many, the press doesn't hold him accountable. Bush has lied several times to the American people, a recent time he actually admitted to it and still the mainstream media was unwilling to call him a lair! In fact the Washington Post went as far as censoring one of their own articles: "Shortly after accurately reporting remarks that President Bush made during a press conference, the Washington Post changed its article. The newer version mischaracterized the president’s words and dropped a crucial quote. Why? Maybe because the old version of the article showed that the president is a liar."

Our lives are at risk, it is time to employ the basic powers of government to rescue ourselves from an impeding doom. We must demand that Congress impeach President Bush for launching the war on Iraq. The reason Bush said he attacked Iraq is a lie. He said he attacked because Saddam didn't let the inspectors in, THAT IS A LIE! What a insult to the American people that this man doesn't even know the basic fact about why he attacked Iraq! What an insult all those that served and all those that have died or have been maimed in Bush's war that Bush is lying about why he started the war. What an insult it is for the mainstream media to sweep these things under the rug, fooling millions of Americans about issues that effect their lives.

How did the American people get to this point? The media is manipulating the public and violating basic principles.

I think you have been influenced by mainstream media. How is it you scoff at the idea of a being as good as your word, at the idea of upholding international law? When the U.S. signs an international treaty, it is supposed to uphold it, that basic principle is enshrined in our Constitution. Over the past decades, the MSM has driven the idea out of many people's heads of behaving morally and legally in international affairs. The main way they do it is by neglecting to allow pundits on the air that support the rule of law. "A long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT" -Thomas Paine

We may have little time left. What do you say to doing a serious examination of the issues. We must insist that our representatives uphold the U.S. Constitution, it is the only way we are going to avert a potential crisis of horrific proportions. Bush must be stopped. With his words and actions, Bush has made it clear that nothing short of impeachment will stop him from starting another war. With his words and actions, Bush has made it clear that he is dangerous and nothing short of impeachment can protect the American people.

Recommended Microphone for Mac or PC

Recommended Microphone for Mac or PC

This is a noise-canceling microphone, it cancels background noise and interference. This is the mic to get if you want to cancel out the fan noise of your computer. This is my recommendation for a good microphone at a good price. Get it here: Logitech USB Desktop Microphone

Hear Test of Logitech USB Desktop Microphone

Working towards war

Rice lied about Iran to U.S. Congress

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled the U.S. Congress when she said last week that she had not seen a 2003 Iranian proposal for talks with the United States ... Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice. He said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."

"Leverett said "this was a serious proposal, a serious effort" by Iran to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement."

"The Bush administration up to and including Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran proposal," he said."

"I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about," says Rice.

"Leverett and others have represented the proposal as a missed opportunity that could have defused tensions with Iran which have grown to the point that the U.S. administration has been forced to deny it plans military action against Tehran." - Ex-aide says Rice misled U.S. Congress on Iran

All Options are NOT on the Table

All Options are NOT on the Table

We have an extremely serious problem with the mainstream media and the political elites. Their agenda violates the fundamentals of basic decency and morality. It should be pointed out that a "War of Choice" is by definition A WAR CRIME, you should call a spade a spade. Those that pushed the Iraq War and MANY of the same people that declare that "all options are on the table" are still engaged in the promotion of war crimes. All options are NOT on the table with regard to Iran because we are not a Nazi country, we are supposed to be a nation of laws and our politicians are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution. You can't just "choose" to attack a country for any reason you concoct. We are supposed to abide by basic rules of international laws against war crimes as treaties signed by the U.S. plainly state. The mainstream media and politicians such as Hillary Clinton and others have violated their oaths of office by violating the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause makes clear that the founders of this country did not envision a country of pirates and thieves.

It should also be pointed out that these violations of the U.S. Constitution are violations of the rights of the American people and the specific acts, the wars that these politicians are getting the U.S. into are violations of the American people as well. The so called "progressives" must stop playing along with or soft peddling the criticism of the ugly and deadly neo-con games and start saying clearly that their agenda is ILLEGAL And IMMORAL and not just "unnecessary".

Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.

Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."

Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."

In response to my video, What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't, BurtLanden complains erroneously, "If you really think that al qaeda hates America because of our support for Israel, then youre a sucker. al Qaeda NEVER ONCE mentioned Israel until the last few years. do your homework. go back and read why bin Laden declared war on America in 1998. because of our support for Saudia Arabia and because we have troops on Saudi Arabian (Muslim ) soil. bin Laden HATED Arafat, Hussein and all Muslims who dont practice strict fundamentalist Islam. al qaeda couldnt give a crap about the Palestinians!"

That isn't true Burt. (Burt has swallowed Thomas Friedman's lie)

I put these links together to expose the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."

NEW POST: Motives for the September 11, 2001 Attacks

Why did Osama bin Laden declare a jihad against the US government?

Thomas Friedman has the audacity to lie to the American people about the worst attack against America in history in order to serve Israel's agenda.

Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives

Osama bin Laden Has Been Angry About U.S. Support of Israel for Decades
A chutzpah award goes to CNN's Anderson Cooper for pushing Thomas Friedman's canard even after reading Bergen's book.

Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

CNN continues to downplay and omit motives for attacks

SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks.

It is beyond the pale for Zionists to lie to us about why we were attacked on 9/11.

The reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries.

1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive: Attack was "to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia."

No Other Motivation, No Other Issue
Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel: He had no other motivation, no other issue.

The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel

We were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific US Foreign Polices

ABC NEWS OMITS Mention of AMERICA and ISRAEL

Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.

In an Oct. 2004 speech, Osama bin Laden said that Bush is still misleading the American people by not telling us the real reason why al-Qeada attacks us. Bin Laden said that, "contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. "[The 19 hijackers of 9/11]

Prevent Bush from Attacking Iran!

Prevent Bush from Attacking Iran!

"Congress has the responsibility to prevent Bush from attacking Iran. In view of congressional opposition to his war in Iraq, Bush will not likely ask permission to make war on Iran. We can expect Bush to provoke - or even fabricate a la Tonkin Gulf - an incident with Iran and then claim he's responding to Iranian aggression. Senior Pentagon officials reported in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times that Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border may be used more aggressively. Bush will then try to bootstrap the September 2001 and October 2002 congressional authorizations for force in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively into consent to attack Iran.

A U.S. Attack Is Illegal
Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Under the Charter, a country can attack another only in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would violate our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States' legal obligations and informing the Bush administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses." - Bush Targets Iran by Marjorie Cohn

Below is what I wrote about the illegality of President Bush's attack on Iraq:

I don't see any mention of the fact that it was illegal to attack Iraq. The NYT is notorious for serving the interests of the powerful and the powerful don't like to be bound by laws. All this sick minded talk from the Times as if it is simply a choice that may or may not be made. Attacking Iraq wasn't "a choice" that either "should" be made or not. It wasn't a choice that would be a "mistake" or not. It was a case of either violating the law of our land or not. The Times is a very sick newspaper for suppressing the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal.
It would be very interesting to see if any mainstream news outlet reported the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal. I never saw one report that basic fact.
see The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy

NOW we see the same game being played with regard to talk about Bush attacking Iran.

Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.

Jet Fuel Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Jet Fuel Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

"Almost immediately after the impact, somewhat bizarrely, I smelled an overwhelming stench of aviation fuel, Jet A1 gas, which I recognized because I'm a private pilot and I'm used to airfield environments. I recall smelling it and almost instantly dismissed it as being illogical and didn't have any place in the World Trade Center." - Paul Neal

The planes impacted the buildings with tremendous force and damaged the structure. The crashes forced debris and jet fuel down the elevator shafts. The fire ball explosions came right out of the elevator shafts, the elevator doors were blown open. People in the the lower/sub-basements levels could smell the jet fuel which smelled like kerosene.

"At 8:46am, the 1st plane flew into the north tower, my building. My co-workers and I escaped by descending 30 flights of stairs through jet fuel fumes and water." - Jen Murawski

"We smelled kerosene," Mike Pecoraro recounted. Felipe David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries. Cutter explosives don't create fireballs.

"Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor. One was a female Carpenter and the other an Elevator Operator. They were both badly burned and injured."

"... I thought it was odd that no one was coming into our stairwell from other floors. I assumed that they found other stairwells. … 21, 20, 19 … I could smell something familiar. There it is, my first connection to the outside. I could smell something. What is it? It reminds me of something. Kerosene? It smells like the kerosene heaters my father had 20 years ago in the Poconos. (I never made the connection to jet fuel until later on.) ... We keep going; 9, 8, 7, then again, "hold it." Picture the scene. You can only see half a flight below you and half above. If you crane your neck into the center of the stairs, all you can see are dozens of hands. There is still no panic. We are using those ahead of us as scouts, listening to whatever we could. The smell of burning kerosene is getting stronger. ... When we got to 1, the elevator doors were blown out and blackened. These were our first images of what was happening. They led us out the Marriott Hotel lobby. On the floor to our right was a fireman with a woman who was blackened from head to toe, barely alive, if alive at all." - Christopher Ferrer

If it was "explosives" they would be blown to pieces rather than burned. Being burned is consistent with a fuel explosion. Other individuals were burned as well and there was a lot of smoke.

"As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn't recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. Thats when Lieutenant Foti said oh, thats the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you're camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.

The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I don't recall if I actually saw people in there. What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.

There was a lady there screaming that she didn't know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.

Thats the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. Im assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint." - Firefighter Peter Blaich

"David Kravette, a managing director of Cantor Fitzgerald, caught an elevator down from the 105th floor to meet clients in the lobby. He emerged in the lobby, slightly aggravated at the inconvenience. "Which one of you knuckleheads came without an ID?'' Kravette recalled asking, just as a tremendous explosion shook the six-story lobby. "I saw a couple of elevators in free fall; you could hear them whizzing down and as they crashed, there was this huge explosion, like a fireball exploding out of the bank of elevators,'' Kravette said. "People were engulfed in flames.'' He escaped across an overpass to the West Side Highway. Three Cantor employees in the lobby suffered severe burns but will survive."

"Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft. Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day."

As he waited for orders, Meldrum, the chauffeur (Fire engine driver), noticed that all windows in the high lobby were blown out. Glass and marble from busted walls littered the floors, crunched underfoot. He caught an occasional whiff of jet fuel, a smell like kerosene, wafting from elevator shafts. On the floor by the elevators he saw burned people.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "and then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." FIRE causes people's skin to peel and hang off their bodies. (*see example of skin hanging off because of fire below)

"It was an eerie walk down the smoky stairs, a path to safety that ran through the suffering. They saw people who had been badly burned. Their skin, he says, "was like a grayish color, and it was like dripping, or peeling, like the skin was peeling off their body."

... Even as people streamed down the stairs, the cracks were appearing in the walls as the building shuddered and cringed. Steam pipes burst, and at one point an elevator door burst open and a man fell out, half burned alive, his skin hanging off. People dragged him out of the elevator and helped get him out of the building to the doctors below." - TIME

There are more quotes at this page: Jet Fuel

*An example of skin hanging off because of fire: (from "Escape: Because Accidents Happen: Fire" PBS Airdate: February 16, 1999) ""Some people had - Their clothing was alight, their hair was very singed. Where their arms and skin were exposed, there was skin hanging off that had been burnt." - Alan Pryke

Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous

Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous

President Bush was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Scott Pelley at Camp David. The online interview clip and transcript reveals something that they left out of the TV version: Increadibly, Bush thinks the Iranian President "threatened countries with nuclear weapons" and that he "said he wants a nuclear weapon." Please stop the 'War President' before he starts WWIII. See video

SCOTT PELLEY: What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'd say, first of all, to him, "You've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you've made your country the pariah of the world. You've threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You've said you want a nuclear weapon. You've defied international accord. And you're slowly but surely isolating yourself." And secondly, that "it's in your interest to have a unified nation on your border. It's in your interest that there be a flourishing democracy." And thirdly, you know, "If we catch your people inside the country harming US citizens or Iraqi citizens, you know, we will deal with them." transcript

Bush is wrong! This is a dangerous situation.
Stop the 'War President' NOW!

Write Your Representative
Contact Your Senator
Contact the Whitehouse
Contact the Media

See Video: Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous
Stop the 'War President' before he starts WWIII.

The video was removed by YouTube but it should not have been. It is a textbook example of "Fair Use" SEE: A Fair Use Issue and CBS

Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous

Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous
A Fair Use Issue and CBS

I uploaded this video: Bush is Ignorant and Extremely Dangerous, to LiveVideo since YouTube removed it.

There was no justification for removing the video. I used 18 seconds of audio, with one still frame in order to comment on an extremely serious matter where the President of the United States makes another false statement. I also used 7 seconds of video without audio to critique the segment as well (it showed the interviewer and Bush). This is in a 70 second video that I present as my news analysis. This CLEARLY falls under Fair Use. My video has been pulled off of YouTube and this notice is in its place: "This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner CBS Broadcasting, Inc because its content was used without permission" That is BS. I have a right under Fair Use to use 18 seconds of audio and 7 seconds of video to analyze an extremely important issue of the day. If what I did in this video is not "Fair Use" then nothing is.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Read transcript here: President Bush was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Scott Pelley at Camp David. The online interview clip and transcript reveals something that they left out of the TV version: Increadibly, Bush thinks the Iranian President "threatened countries with nuclear weapons" and that he "said he wants a nuclear weapon." Please stop the 'War President' before he starts WWIII.

1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive

1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive: Attack was "to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia."

Abdul Rahman Yasin was an accomplice in the 1993 bombing of the WTC. Lesley Stahl, from the CBS show 60 Minutes, interviewed him in May of 2002. She asked him about Ramzi Yousef and how Yousef convinced him to help him.

Abdul Rahman Yasin: He was not charismatic but he had a strong logic. He can convince people easily. He convinced me.

Lesley Stahl: So you’re saying that Ramzi Yousef and Mohammed Salameh tried to politicize you. Is that what you're telling us?

Abdul Rahman Yasin: Yes, they tried and I was influenced. They used to tell me that you are an Iraqi and you have seen the destruction in Iraq. And they used to tell me how Arabs suffered a great deal, and that we have to send a message that this is not right. This is to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia. So they talked to me a lot about this.

Yasin "says he is sorry for what he did and that the bombers, whom he said he met for the first time while living in a Jersey City apartment building, talked him into it."

After his capture, the FBI questioned Ramzi Yousef on the flight back from Pakistan about his motivations for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.

"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273

Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack on the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

MSNBC : The Contenders - Where's Dennis Kucinich?

NBC : The Contenders - Where's Dennis Kucinich?

It way be far worse than that.

It way be far worse than that. People are starting to realize that Bush threatened Iran in the speech and US raid on the Iranian consulate in Iraq is a bad sign. A worse sign is the air craft carriers and the missiles that Bush is sending over there.

It would be another war crime on a huge scale and could very well spiral out of control into WWIII.

Now I don't know about you but every WWIII forecast I have ever seen predicted deaths in excess of the casualties of every other war to date. We are living in dangerous times. It is critical that we pull Bush's ability to start another war NOW. His violation of the US Constitution is grounds enough to politically neutralize him to prevent him from destroying millions of lives.

Selling his plan for escalating the war in Iraq

Selling his plan for escalating the war in Iraq, President Bush claimed, "the consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits."

Amy Zalman, Ph.D. writes, "There is no evidence that any American presence in Iraq will forestall Islamist extremism, nor that leaving or engaging differently would by itself lead to an increase." - Bush's Speech Sees Iraq as Fatal Battleground for Terrorism Vs. Freedom

I think she should point out that there is evidence that staying in Iraq actually increases the anger and recruitment of Islamist extremists.



Zalman does point out that the speech indicated a "poor understanding of the region." But she should explain it so people can understand it. She should explain that "terrorism vs freedom" is a false premise about why we were attacked on 9/11. The premise for why we were attacked on 9/11, the premise for the war on terror, is a lie. We were not attacked on 9/11 because "they hate our freedoms." We were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign policies and not "because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world" as Bush claimed on 9/11.

Terrorists are attacking us for the same reason terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. Ramzi Yousef sent his letter to the NYT stating the motive for attacking the WTC in 1993, "this action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

Osama bin Laden has made his motives known, "we swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine . This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel."

President Bush says, "the Commander-in-Chief ought to listen to what the enemy says." I think President Bush should do what he says. Bin Laden has repeated the motives by reminding people that "in 1998, the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning ..." He also pointed out that President Bush was hiding the truth about their motives, "the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries."

Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.

Bush lied about why we were attacked on 9/11.

The motives for 9/11 are no mystery. The motives have been stated by several people clearly and repeatedly for years. The terrorists are not attacking us in order to force us to convert to Islam or because we don't believe in Islam or that they don't like freedom or that they are envious.

Osama bin Laden answered questions

In a May 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden answered questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. Here is a key question that answers why he commits terrorism against the U.S.

Q: Many of the Arabic as well as the Western mass media accuse you of terrorism and of supporting terrorism. What do you have to say to that?

Osama bin Laden: There is an Arabic proverb that says "she accused me of having her malady, then snuck away."

Besides, terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible. Terrifying an innocent person and terrorizing him is objectionable and unjust, also unjustly terrorizing people is not right.

Whereas, terrorizing oppressors and criminals and thieves and robbers is necessary for the safety of people and for the protection of their property. There is no doubt in this. Every state and every civilization and culture has to resort to terrorism under certain circumstances for the purpose of abolishing tyranny and corruption. Every country in the world has its own security system and its own security forces, its own police and its own army. They are all designed to terrorize whoever even contemplates to attack that country or its citizens. The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah, the tyrants, the traitors who commit acts of treason against their own countries and their own faith and their own prophet and their own nation. Terrorizing those and punishing them are necessary measures to straighten things and to make them right. Tyrants and oppressors who subject the Arab nation to aggression ought to be punished. The wrongs and the crimes committed against the Muslim nation are far greater than can be covered by this interview. America heads the list of aggressors against Muslims. The recurrence of aggression against Muslims everywhere is proof enough. For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed. And the strange thing is that any act on their part to avenge themselves or to lift the injustice befalling them causes great agitation in the United Nations which hastens to call for an emergency meeting only to convict the victim and to censure the wronged and the tyrannized whose children have been killed and whose crops have been destroyed and whose farms have been pulverized. ...

In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression. They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. And the United Nations insistence to convict the victims and support the aggressors constitutes a serious precedence which shows the extent of injustice that has been allowed to take root in this land.

John Miller also asked questions, below is an example:

John Miller: Ramzi Yousef was a follower of yours. Do you remember him and did you know him?

Osama bin Laden: After the explosion that took place in the World Trade Center, Ramzi Yousef became a well known Muslim figure. Muslims have come to know him. Unfortunately, I did not know him before this incident. I of course remember who he is. He is a Muslim who wanted to protect his religion jealously from the oppression practiced by America against Islam. He acted with zeal to make the Americans understand that their government was attacking Muslims in order to safeguard the American-Jewish interests

The Iraq War and Oil Privatization

The Iraq War and Oil Privatization
Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time,"


"to have nobody talk about it, to me, is fairly shocking and makes clear that still the Democrats, the Republicans, the media are afraid to talk about oil"

"the report calls for privatization of Iraq’s oil, turning it over to private foreign corporate hands, putting all of the oil in the hands of the central government, and essentially, I would argue, extending the war in Iraq to ensure that US oil companies get what the Bush administration went in there for: control and greater access to Iraq's oil."

"the report also says that the US government will withhold military, economic and political support of the Iraqi government, unless the recommendations are met. That’s a pretty straightforward statement. The US government will not provide any support to the al-Maliki government, unless it advances the changes to the Iraqi constitution and changes to Iraqi national law that essentially privatize Iraq's oil."

That is something for us in the antiwar movement to be very, very clear about, that this is their objective and that we have to, as I repeatedly say, not just call for the end of troops in Iraq, but make clear that the US corporate invasion cannot be progressed or continue, as well."- Oil for Sale: Why the Iraq Study Group is Calling for the Privatization of Iraq's Oil Industry

"The Iraqi government is considering a new oil law that could give private oil companies greater control over its vast reserves. In light of rampant violence and shaky democratic institutions, many fear the law is being pushed through hastily by special interests behind closed doors."

How is pressure used to make Iraq do what the special interests want? See:

"The recent Iraq Study Group report recommended the US help Iraq "prepare a draft oil law" to hasten investment. The report estimates Iraq could raise oil production from 2 million to 3 or 3.5 million barrels per day over the next three to five years.

Critics say the US is leaning on the IMF and World Bank to push Iraq into signing oil contracts fast, so western firms can secure the oil before Chinese, Indian and Russian firms do. An IMF official told SPIEGEL ONLINE that "passage of a hydrocarbon law is not a condition for financial support from the IMF." Nevertheless, Iraqi authorities found it necessary to promise the IMF a draft petroleum law by the end of this year -- this in the same letter that says "we will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the program remains on track."

The IMF sets the conditions for Iraq's debt relief from the so-called Paris Club countries. Eighty percent of that debt has been wiped clean, and the final 20 percent depends on certain economic reforms. With the final reduction, Iraq's debt would come to 33 percent of its GDP -- but if the reforms are not made, debt would climb to 57 percent of GDP, according to an IMF report.

Criticisms have also been levelled against the World Bank, where former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz is in charge. Wolfowitz has been accused of pushing a US agenda after opening a World Bank office in Baghdad."

- Will Iraq's Oil Blessing Become a Curse? By Joshua Gallu in Berlin

Domestic terrorism to silence free speech: KPFT radio station bombed

Domestic terrorism to silence free speech: KPFT radio station bombed