Thursday, June 28, 2007


Smooth runs the water where the brook is deep
And in his simple show he harbors treason.

Dick here again.
Recently some of the CIA's
family jewels have been uncovered.
I want one thing to be perfectly clear:
family jewels are not for the seeing or the selling.
My secrets are mine and mine alone.
I put the United States of America into Iraq.
Accept that.
You needed gas and I got it for you.
O.K. it's a mess in Iraq, but give it some time.
Give it a lot of time.
And how and why I put us there is none of your business.
(A little bird told me: Subterfuge is the mother of war.}
Just look what happened to Joseph Wilson's wife.
Likewise, none of my private dealings with energy policy or surveillance will be uncovered.
You can try.
But you will fail.
My bunker and my safes are quite secure.
Subpoena me until doomsday, but you
ain't ever gonna see my family jewels.

This vice president, who was a driving force for taking the United States into a war against Iraq under false pretenses, is once again rattling the sabers of war against Iran with the same intent to drive America into another war, again based on false pretenses.

Let me cite from the articles of impeachment that were introduced this afternoon, Article I, that Richard Cheney had purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.

That despite all evidence to the contrary, the vice president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

That preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The vice president pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and the Congress of the United States.

That in this the vice president subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members and the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs, which has increased our federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States armed services, through an overextension and lack of training and lack of equipment; and the loss of United States credibility in the world affairs and decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

That with respect to Article II, that Richard Cheney manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida in order to justify the use of United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.

And that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the vice president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida.

That preceding to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, a fact articulated in several official documents.

With respect to Article III, that in his conduct while vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the United States's proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security interests of the United States.

That despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and despite the turmoil created by the United States's invasion of Iraq, the vice president has openly threatened aggression against Iran.

April 24, 2007

Threat to world peace: The possibility of a US attack on Iran
Excerpts of presentation
Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference

Global Research
June 26, 2007

"I have been speaking in public for 60 years, but this is perhaps the most important topic I have ever spoken about."

"I want to talk about the threat to world peace, and the possibility of a US attack, possibly a nuclear attack, on Iran."

Even The New York Times is worried about it, and has reported on the split between the pro-war Vice-President's office and Condoleezza Rice's State Department . . . the plans are there, and they concern a lot of people within the Bush administration, who are leaking them. One thing the leaks show is that the plans are massive."

"There has been talk of this for three years now, and Seymour Hersh has been predicting it about every three months . . . Does that mean we shouldn't be alarmed [because it keeps getting predicted and doesn't happen]?

"The recent replacement of Robert Gates [as US Secretary of Defense] may be taken as a sign that the Bush administration has become less likely to attack Iran. However, paradoxically the lessening influence of the hawks increases the chance of another 9/11 . . . The plans were drawn up to be in response to a supposed attack on the US" [hence pro-war factions may require one in order to trigger the war].

Scott quotes a military officer: "As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional with Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism against the United States" A similar warning has been given by former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.

On the 9/11 movement:

"Like all research movements, the 9/11 movement is becoming ingrown, debating matters that alienate the general public. [This debate] focusses on detail rather than anlysis . . . false simplicities as opposed to analytic depth [a mirror opposite of the Bush simplicities]. LIHOP [the theory that the Bush administartion allowed 9/11 to happen] and MIHOP [the theory that the Bush administration caused 9/11 to happen] are also false simplicities . . ."

"The 9/11 movement is a movement that wants the truth. It cannot be said to be a movement that has the truth."

"I find it very hard to believe that the Bush administration either let or made it happen. It's clear that people within government were involved, but we should avoid condemning an entire administration."

"There is a whole milieu of Saudi capital allied with Texas capital . . . somewhere within the Saudi/Texas/Geneva [banking] milieu there is the place for a meta-group . . . with resources necessary for a successful plot."

Quotes Russian general: "'9/11 changed the direction of the world in the direction desired by transnational oligarchs and and an international mafia.' That's what I mean by a meta group."

Nevertheless, Scott regards Cheney as likely involved: "Cheney should be made to testify again under oath . . . The most likely candidate for involvement in the first 9/11 for Iraq is also the most likely for a second attack on Iran."

"The more status someone has in this society, the harder it is for them to accept that there is something wrong with that society . . . my book [The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, forthcoming from the University of California Press] is addressed to the problem of the ignorance of the highly educated."

"The 9/11 report only lies in certain places. . . there is a pattern: a diminishment of the role played by Cheney on that day." Scott cites [former Secretary of Transportation] Norman Minetta's testimony that Cheney was in the White House bunker by 9:20; 9/11 commission simply ignored it, and reported instead that he arrived shortly before 10."

Cheney himself told the press five days after 9/11 that he had arrived in the bunker before the Pentagon was hit. He later changed his account. "One of the accounts has to be wrong. Should we believe this man when he comes before us and says we should go to war with Iran? I think we need more information about the first thing he told us."

"If he was in the bunker before 9:37, he had time to issue all the salient commands on that morning."

"It is inconceivable that the Secret Service waited 14 minutes to rush Cheney into the bunker. And we now know that the first report of a plane incoming to The Pentagon was at 9:21. If we ever receive the Secret Service timeline, we will most likely find that that is when he was taken there."

The 9/11 Commission didn't investigate the flagrant contradiction between Minetta's testimony and Cheney's [statements]. The White House implied that Minetta got the time and plane wrong, based on the account given by Cheney. "A third version comes from Mrs. Cheney and the leading White House perjurer, I. Lewis Libby . . . that's the one the 9/11 Commission chose."

"On the basis of the track record, the one that would carry the most credibility is Norman Minetta's. The notes of I. Lewis Libby should be subjected to severe scrutiny. Mr. Cheney should be recalled, leading either to charges of perjury or a very different version of what happened."

In the 1980's, during the Reagan administration, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. were charged with creating a plan that, in the event of a national emergency, would "dispense with legal procedures and replace them with a secret procedure for putting in place a new President and his staff," in the name of continuity of government. George H. W. Bush also had input.

"By this means Cheney was able to put in place a radical change of government before 9:54 on Sept. 11, 2001."

"What we have seen since 9/11 is the constitutional government being replaced by deep government."

Similar tactics used used in the JFK assassination. "When deep government makes these encroachments, they turn to their ties in drug trafficking . . . in the case of 9/11, those drug proxies were almost certainly people embedded in 9/11 . . . my hypothesis is that there is still a deep-state, there is still an Al Qaeda involved in drug trafficking, and they are still capable of creating another 9/11."

"We are talking about the largest homicide in the history of the US, and it is a homicide that hasn't yet been properly investigated."

"We know that Cheney disappeared for long periods of time to a bunker on the Pennsylvania-Maryland border and became, according The Washington Post, the leader of a shadow government."

On the morning of 9/11, Both Cheney and Rumsfeld absented themselves from their staffs. Rumsfeld claimed he was outside the Pentagon, helping carry stretchers. But Scott proposes they were absent "in order to discuss a topic their staffs were not cleared to know about, and that was COG ["Continuity of Government.]"

Areas to focus on:

1. Who authored the June, 2001 document giving control of the air command to Cheney?

2. The contested time of Cheney's arrival in the White House bunker.

3. Cheney's orders regarding the plane approaching the Pentagon [see Norman Minetta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission].

4. Cheney's calls with Bush and Rumsfeld on the morning of 9/11, and did they talk about COG?

"My last paragraph is addressed to you in this room. If what I have said about peace and 9/11 has any meaning to you, then what you do in the months to come will be very important."

Dr. Peter Dale Scott, is a former Canadian diplomat, researcher, professor, University of California, Berkeley

Wednesday, June 27, 2007


The student who put up that banner which read BONG HITS 4 JESUS lost his right to do so.
The Supreme Court said that the banner was promoting drugs.
Mr. Bong didn't use any drugs when he "hit for Jesus", but the Supreme Court must have gotten high from something when it made this decision.
That's what baseball players do.
They hit.
The reading (and thinking?) public, teenagers and adults, should have enough sense to interpret the banner by themselves---for good or bad.
We do not want the Supreme Court to make those interpretations for us.
We do not need the high court to tell high school students or anyone else what they can or cannot think, write or speak.
What would Jesus say?
Print Edition
June 27, 2007

THE SUPREME Court fractured on a case involving student speech rights this week. The result was not good for First Amendment freedoms on campus.
In 2002, then-high school senior Joseph Frederick unfurled a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during a school-sanctioned event across from his Juneau, Alaska, campus. His principal promptly tore it down and suspended the student. Mr. Frederick challenged the punishment, claiming that the principal had violated his First Amendment rights, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed. But on Monday the Supreme Court reversed that decision. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority: "The 'special characteristics of the school environment' . . . and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse -- reflected in the policies of Congress and myriad school boards, including [that of Juneau-Douglas High School] -- allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting illegal drug use."
One objection to this conclusion is: Who knows what the banner was promoting? As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent: "To the extent the court independently finds that 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' objectively amounts to the advocacy of illegal drug use -- in other words, that it can most reasonably be interpreted as such -- that conclusion practically refutes itself. This is a nonsense message, not advocacy."
A more serious objection concerns the chief justice's expansion of the kinds of speech that can be restricted in school. As Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted, the fact that illegal drugs are harmful to students is not a sufficient explanation for banning a broad category of campus expression. The same reasoning can apply to any number of contentious issues. In addition, Mr. Roberts's language suggested that the stated policies of local school boards or other relevant governmental entities should determine in part whether expressing a particular view is permissible at school. Two members of the majority -- Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy -- explicitly rejected that argument in a concurring opinion, so the court's decision did not enshrine it. But the principle is nonetheless disturbing and, if applied in different cases later, has the potential to shut down student speech on a range of controversial subjects.
Issues of drug use and drug policy are matters of serious contention. High school students must be able to debate them frankly -- and that might even involve students taking the position that bong hits are not that bad.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Excerpts from THE TERROR CONSPIRACY: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty by JIM MARRS/Published by The Disinformation Company Ltd.


The continuing controversy over the Pentagon attack is the result of a simple lack of decisive evidence. One can hardly doubt that there must have been ample evidence at the actual crime scene, and so, the primary problem is that most of this evidence was removed by a variety of suspicious official actions in the wake of the attack. These include seizing of security videos that have never been made public, the immediate and rapid mop-up of the crime scene and the destruction of, or suppression of, nearly all the physical evidence inside the building in the days and weeks following the attack.

Take the case of April Gallop, who was working inside the Pentagon's west side when it was struck on 9/11. Gallop was preparing to take her infant son to day care when an explosion rocked the building. "I thought it was a bomb," Gallop recalled. "I was buried in rubble and my first thought was for my son...outside they were treating survivors on the grassy lawn. But all the ambulances had left, so a man who was near the scene stepped up, put us in a private car, and drove us to the hospital."

Gallop said while in the hospital, men in suits visited her more than once. "They never identified themselves or even said which agency they worked for. But I know they were not newsmen because I learned that the Pentagon told news reporters not to cover survivors' stories or they would not get any more stories out of there. The men who visited all said they couldn't tell me what to say, they only wanted to make suggestions. But then they told me what to do, which was to take the [Victim Compensation Fund] money and shut up. They also kept insisting that a plane hit the building. They repeated this over and over. But I was there and I never saw a plane or even debris from a plane. I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people."

Military affairs journalist Barbara Honegger reported many people in the Pentagon at the time of the attack believed a bomb or bombs had exploded inside the building. She reported that, oddly enough, multiple teams of K-9 bomb-sniffing dogs with handlers in camouflage were seen just outside the Pentagon at about 7:30 am on September 11, 2201. One Army officer said he had never seen the bomb dogs there before or since 9/11.

Page 92-93-94-95: THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Internet Commentator Allan P. Duncan wrote:

"Between the Fall of 1998 and June 2001, a group of Middle Eastern men living in New Jersey is caught on tape in an ATF weapons sting conspiring to buy millions of dollars of weapons including components for nuclear bombs. Three years after the operation ended, all of the people in the deal are free.

"Federal agents who worked on the case were frustrated because it was handled as a criminal case instead of a counterterrorism case. In an in depth look at 'Operation Diamondback' I reveal that one of the suspects who was accused of skimming millions of dollars from a fraudulent HMO to offshore accounts where the money allegedly went to finance terrorism, was defended in the HMO case by a lawyer who later became the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, under John Ashcroft. The lawyer, Michael Chertoff, was in his position as Assistant Attorney General when Operation Diamondback ended and his client was never arrested even though an intelligence document claimed he and his brother in Egypt had links to Osama Bin Laden."

Chicago attorney David Schippers said in a late October 2001 interview that he had been approached by FBI agents a month and a half prior to the 9/11 attacks. The agents revealed that they had knowledge that lower Manhattan was to be the object of a terrorist attack using airplanes as flying bombs and they wanted to prevent this.

They were seeking legal advice because their FBI superiors had ordered them off the case and threatened them with the National Security Act if they spoke out. Schippers said he tried in vain to warn Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"Again I used people who were personal friends of John Ashcroft to try to get to him. One of them callled me back and said, 'All right, I have talked to him. He will call you tomorrow morning.' This was like month before the bombing. The next morning I got a call. It wasn't from Ashcroft. It was from somebody in the Justice Department. He said, 'We don't start our investigations at the top. Let me look into this and I will get back to you.' As I sit here today [October 10, 2001], I have never heard from him."

Once again, no mention of this incident or even the name of David Schippers, a very prominent Republican attorney, can be found anywhere in The 9/11 Commission Report.


Inflated budgets, further centralization of intelligence functions, and adding more intelligence and law enforcement manpower will add nothing to the search for true national security until the American people demand an honest accounting concerning how our government behaved before and during the 9/11 attacks. The record clearly shows that there was a great deal of foreknowledge of what was to come and even covert contact with the alleged hijackers, yet very little commitment at the highest level to stopping the attacks---in fact, there appeared to be a willingness to allow them to happen.


The Warren Report rested on the shaky premise of Arlen Specter's single bullet theory---the idea that one rifle slug passed through both President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally---causing seven separate wounds to both men including hitting at least two bones---yet emerged to be found unscathed at the hospital. Similarly, the 9/11 Commission's verdict that 9/11 was simply the result of miscues, miscommunication and system badly in need of centralization is based on the equally implausible premise that at least 19 fanatical Arab Muslims---some with expired visas or questionable passports and some on security watch lists---traveled to various countries where plans were hatched, came in and out of the USA and trained at US flight schools directly under the nose of US authorities without arousing any notice or suspicion, but were then easily identified to a man within hours of the attacks.

Even if there was no intent to cover up the truth, the Commission was not funded at a level sufficient to do its work. Incredibly, more than three times as much money was spent on George W. Bush's 2005 inauguration than was originally allocated to investigate the attacks on September 11, 2001. While a total of $112.6 million was spent to investigate the 2003 space shuttle Columbia disaster and $50 million was once spent to look into Las Vegas gambling casinos, the 9/11 tragedy received a mere $13 million to probe the greatest attack on America since 1812. The Presidential Inaugural Committee estimated Bush's 2005 inauguration events cost about $40 million, with the federal government and District of Columbia bearing an additional $20 million as the costs of providing security.

From the outset, President Bush made clear that he wanted no independent investigation into the attacks. Bowing to entreaties of 9/11 families, the Bush administration initially promised only $3 million to investigate 9/11; it later relented after additional public pressure and released another $10 million.

Page 259-60: PART III: THE 9/11 BACKLASH

"Bin Laden...was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda, literally 'the database,' was originally the computer files of thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians," noted British commentator Robin Cook.

Often supposed enemies prove to be mirror images of each other. Noted author Thom Hartmann pointed out that both Bush's neocons and Muslim terrorists operate from the same ideology---both believe the end justifies the means and that people must be frightened into accepting religion and nationalism for the greater good of morality and a stable state.

Monday, June 25, 2007


This old woman lived next door.
She rented a house behind my Grandma's house.
The house in back was dug into the earth.
The kitchen was on the first floor, then a few steps took you down to the sublevel where there was a small living room, bedroom and bathroom.
I only mention these details because I found this house peculiar.
But even more peculiar was the old woman who lived there.
One time she brought me some cookies.
I was a little afraid of those cookies because I was afraid of the old woman.
I hadn't seen The Wizard of Oz yet, but the old woman looked a little bit like that nasty witch that Dorothy killed when the house fell on her...or maybe when some water killed her.
(I've got to see the movie again.)
My Dad and I were starting to go to church one Sunday morning when the old woman started knocking on the door of Dad's 1954 GMC pickup. I rolled down the window.
"You going to church?"
"I said 'Yes'".
"Can I ride with you?"
My Dad said to open the door and I did.
She hopped in and slid beside me.
It was a close fit
I felt her body almost clinging to mine.
Then the strangest thing happened.
A moth came out of nowhere and started flitting inside the truck cab.
The old woman immediately started swatting the little flying creature, but didn't have much luck with her hands, so she lifted up one leg...then the other...and started kicking and trying to squash that moth.
This flailing and kicking went on for about five minutes.
Five minutes was a long time (and plenty of time) to see what I saw all over the old woman's anatomy.
I mean she had tattoos all over her body.
I could see them clearly on her legs, but it took a little extra peeking everywhere else to see the large territory that was covered with tattoos.
The moth never was killed.
The old woman rolled down the window and shooed it out.
I don't remember much more than the journey to church, and nothing about the sermon or the return trip home.
I think that I was too traumatized by the colorful ordeal with the moth and all of those tattoos.
Weeks later we heard that the old woman had gotten sprayed by a skunk.
We heard that she had soaked in a tub of tomatoes, ketchup or tomato soup to get rid of the skunk smell.
After this, nothing more was heard from the old tattooed woman.


Sunday, June 24, 2007

Q & A

Congress wants to revive the Iraq Study Group. Is that a good idea?

It would be a good idea to revive this moribund Congress, too.

But, yes, the Iraq Study Group (ignored up to now by Bush) should be resuscitated before the patient dies.

Vice President Dick Cheney doesn't think he needs to tell anyone about anything. What should be done about it?

Torture him.

Just kidding.

But everything that is legal should be done to get an investigation going on this vice-president.

(The word VICE is an appropriate adjective to describe Cheney.)

The smugness and arrogance exhibited by Dick Cheney should not prevent investigating the quacker.

But hurry up, he's going to leave office pretty soon.

Look out...

Birds and lawyers!

Saturday, June 23, 2007


Dick here.

I want you guys to just BUG OFF.

My privates are mine and mine alone.

I am protected by Decider George W. Bush, our Unitary Executive and Long War President.

I have a lot of gas and cholesterol, and that's all you guys need to know about any secrets or classified information.

I've got to return to my bunker.

That's where Al-Qaeda and the American people can't find me, or know when I go hunting.

Keep the faith and stay off of my back!


President Bush has turned the executive branch into a two-way mirror. They get to see everything Americans do: our telephone calls, e-mail, and all manner of personal information. And we get to see nothing about what they do.
Governments have to keep secrets. But this administration has grossly abused that trust, routinely using claims of national security to hide policies that are immoral and almost certainly illegal, to avoid embarrassment, and to pursue Mr. Bush’s dreams of an imperial presidency.
Vice President Dick Cheney sets the gold standard, placing himself not just above Congress and the courts but above Mr. Bush himself. For the last four years, he has been defying a presidential order requiring executive branch agencies to account for the classified information they handle. When the agency that enforces this rule tried to do its job, Mr. Cheney proposed abolishing the agency.

White House of Mirrors
Published: June 24, 2007
The New York Times

Friday, June 22, 2007

Q & A

Is it a good idea for the Bush administration to delay tighter border security on the Mexican and Canadian borders?

It's a very bad idea.

It's very dangerous.

But our Decider, with all of his repeated mantras about protecting you and me, isn't protecting us.

He just believes that he is with his pre-emptive war.

His perpetual state of denial is going to get you and me killed.

How could New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's declaration of independence shake up the '08 presidential race?

Bloomberg's wealth will shake up the race.
Bloomberg can buy the presidency better than any other candidate.

This might be good.

A very, very rich man could ignore all of the influences wrought by the corporate powers and rich cronies that have had a stranglehold on most of our presidents.

Should Army combat tours be once again extended from 15-months?


They should not be extended at all.

They should stop.

Congress should cut off all funds.

Bring the troops home.

Start getting ready for the disasters and attacks that are going to come to America.

Iraq is no longer a place where American lives should be sacrificed.

The only tours that should be taken should be by future tourists when they see an Iraq no longer occupied by a foreign power.

Thursday, June 21, 2007


Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we ?

Yes, and this war is the one that we helped to enhance by
attacking-pre-emptively invading then occupying a country that did not
attack NY on 9-11 but now is the hunting ground and breeding ground for the

Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our
shores on September 11, 2001 ?

No, it was not. It was 14 men from Saudi know, the
hand-holding cheek-kissing buddies of Dick Cheney and the Bush family. Not
all of the people of Islam. What a generalization!

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally
murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our
nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?


Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible,
burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they ?


And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated"
when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet ?

That's up to you.

Well . . . . .I don't . . . . . I don't care AT ALL !


I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents
for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11

Write your president this, because he doesn't seem to care anymore [see
bottom quotes of the Decider]:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said,
'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago,
was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's
on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective
is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to
get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's
what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know
whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we
just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

* * *
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start
caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime
in Saudi Arabia.

Again, the country from which most of the 9/11
fanatics-terrorists-hijackers came from was our oil buddy Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking
off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed

Forget any apology coming from the thugs. They consider the invader a big
thug, too. Thus, their wicked ways.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out
and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by
hiding in mosques.

At the rate which the mosques are being bombed from all sides I doubt that
the insurgents are hiding in them.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search
of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their
suicide bombs.


I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First
Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law
instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights


In the meantime:
When I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi
terrorist to obtain information. Know this . . . . . I
don't care !

Many times the roughing up and killing has been done to non-terrorists, thus
inciting otherwise law-abiding citizens to become insurgents. Nothing is
all black or white. Torture is not condoned (remember) according to our
government. Roughing up is not torture.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have
been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest
assured. . . . I don't care !


This sounds like something blow-harder Mr. Limbaugh would assert.
And maybe this is in large part why the so-called Islamo-Terrorism has
America didn't care about humiliating these humans.
But even Donald Duck Rumsfeld didn't think that this so called
"college-hazing" incident was a good thing.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told
not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the
bank. . . . . I don't care !

How compassionate. What would Jesus do?

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat,
and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is
complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can
absolutely believe in your heart of hearts. . . . . I don't care !

But if it's the Christian Bible...

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
and other times spelled "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and - you
guessed it. . . . . I don't care !

It's still the same horse whatever color or name it has.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007


Prepare to be instantly propelled into a world dominated by spying,
tracking, and control as you go behind enemy lines drawn in our own
backyards. I have found that through the research and personal
of over a dozen internationally distinguished authors, journalists,
and military experts that:
"You will begin to understand the massive and

ceaseless control projected onto an unsuspecting populace by a government
that may have finally crossed the line from a representative republic to a
fascist empire."

I have been a student of Orwell and Huxley for many years, and also have
been a close reader and observer of the technology and trends of this
I know what you write is true.
My brother works for the
Veterans Administration (if that is its name and not some other name under
Homeland Security!
Speaking about BIG BROTHER!).
He has a rice-sized implant
in his palm and is quite happy to have it there so that his identity is
He asserts that if a person has nothing to hide then they shouldn't be concerned whether a government knows everything about them.
There will be no privacy at all in the very near future.
We will all be monitored.
Well, almost all.
The illegal aliens will not be monitored so
that we can still dine on our fresh fruits and vegetables.

Monday, June 18, 2007


(Written on November 29, 2002)

no longer a dormant volcano
in this so-called Land of the Free
I am brave enough to erupt and decry
the loss of liberty &
erosion of privacy
in the name of Homeland Security.

Part I
Oh patriotic American
are you questioning
my patriotism?

Part II
Oh America what is thy

Part III
Terror was Hitler's way
to control the

Part IV
Where did the Russians go?
Were they ever coming?
Where is Osama bin Laden?
Where is the oil?
Who owns and controls America?
Why are we really in Afghanistan?

Part V
Can the Internet forestall the
Bush's ratings were skyrocketing while
America's freedom was plummeting.
Who will benefit the most in a war
with Iraq?

Part VI
Why did the FBI and CIA stay silent &
passive when both knew days & weeks
before 911 about the Twin Towers terrorists
and their pilot training?
What are you doing America?

Part VII

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Q & A

When it comes to Congress and pork, who's to be trusted?

Who's to be trusted when it comes to Congress and pork? Why, the pigs, of course.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Q & A

Rudy Giuliani says he'd consider increasing U.S. troops in Iraq. Is that the answer?

The more troops that are put into Iraq, the more deaths and insurgency.
When will Rudy and all the other cheerleaders of this lost war wake up?
The war was a mistake and it is a mistake to remain in Iraq.
American soldiers need to come home and protect the American homeland.
They sure can't protect the Iraqi people in its civil war.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007


Yes, it is really about oil, but it's also about something else:

The U.S. military wants to have active bases in Iraq from which to send soldiers to be ready for any problems with Iran and Syria...and eventually with China.

America is occupying Iraq for strategic control and influence in the Middle East.


Even if most soldiers leave Iraq, there will still be those bases and the George W. Bush Palace (i.e. the new U.S. Embassy).

Now I understand the latest announcement that Iraq will be like our presence in South Korea.

Perpetual occupation.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Q & A

President Bush calls the Senate's no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "meaningless." Is it?

No it isn't meaningless, but President Bush is becoming increasingly meaningless. How can we believe Mr. Bush on anything anymore? If Gonzales is exposed and prosecuted, then what he has said on behalf of Mr. Bush will also be exposed for its mendacity and possible illegality.

I am referring to Mr. Gonzales's stance on the Geneva Convention (its quaintness) and his position on spying...among other things. Mr. Bush needs to keep Alberto the monkey on his back or the whole monkey house will go bananas.

Senator Joe Lieberman says the U.S. should consider attacking Iran. Is he right?

Right Joe, and while we're at it let's bomb Syria and China. Joe the Jingoist has joined Dick the Egotist and our Unitary Executive Decider-in-Chief. Pre-emptive war with Iraq is not enough for them. It is wrong for Iran to be helping Insurgents in Iraq, but it is understandable. Would another country bomb Mexico if it was helping America to remove an occupying country?
For those crazies who want to have more war in the world instead of peace, the world has to rise up on its indifferent haunches and raise its very silent voice and scream bloody murder:


But war and militarization of the world is what the good old U.S.A. is so good at.
So, I suppose I should just crawl back into my utopian bubble and accept it that wars will never end...and Iran is next on the chopping block of the NEO CON agenda.

Sunday, June 10, 2007


Porous borders.

Unprotected ports.

Expending precious lives and money in
Iraq instead of putting the focus on Al-Qaeda and bin Laden & Associates.
Bush is not protecting us from nuclear peril.

He has invited and allowed

Immediate deployment of Nuclear detection equipment is needed at ALL ports and borders, airports and train thoroughfares etc.

Securing the safety and security of our nation here is as important as refereeing a civil war in Iraq.

Saturday, June 09, 2007


I will name Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the NMCC [National Military Command Center], or the White House Situation Room.

Michael Ruppert

"There's problems in Iraq, but it is not a terrible situation."

Dick Cheney

January 24, 2007


I'm watching The Situation Room.

Wolf Blitzer is going to tell viewers (after the commercial messages) why Vice President Dick Cheney needs a new battery for his ICD (implanted cardioverter defibrillator).

My question:

When is Dick going to get a new heart and brain?

Throw in a soul, too, that has a conscience!

Mr. Cheney is loathsome.

He lied about Iraq having WMD.

And then retold the lie.

And Dick holds on to this lie to this day.

It's now reported that Cheney is indirectly implicated in the Mafia-like stronghold on the (then) ailing Attorney General to sign off on the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP):

Official: Cheney Urged Wiretaps

Stand-In for Ashcroft Alleges Interference

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer


June 7, 2007

Vice President Cheney told Justice Department officials that he disagreed with their objections to a secret surveillance program during a high-level White House meeting in March 2004, a former senior Justice official told senators yesterday.

The meeting came one day before White House officials tried to get approval for the same program from then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who lay recovering from surgery in a hospital, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey.

Cheney allegedly disagreed with Justice officials on the legality of surveillance.

Comey's disclosures, made in response to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicate that Cheney and his aides were more closely involved than previously known in a fierce internal battle over the legality of the warrantless surveillance program. The program allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas.

Comey said that Cheney's office later blocked the promotion of a senior Justice Department lawyer, Patrick Philbin, because of his role in raising concerns about the surveillance.

Maybe Dick is in the last throes of his own self-delusion.

Forget the battery.

Get this man a new heart, brain and soul.
Got impeachment?

Friday, June 08, 2007


Rep. Jerry Nadler says the actions of the Bush administration when it comes to NSA wiretapping are "worse than Watergate." Is he right?

Yes, he is right. The Watergate incident was bad enough, with the Republicans wanting to dig up dirt and uncover what the Democrats were up to, but the Bush administration was digging up dirt on American citizens, in the name of fighting terrorism. Bush went too far, and still is, and he (and Dick) are shameless because they do not think their domestic snooping is wrong (or UNCONSITUTIONAL!). Rep. Nadler echoes the title and the substance of John Dean's book of the same name. Both are right on the money. The amazing thing is that dirt of the shenanigans committed by Cheney, Gonzalez, Rove (hiding somewhere with his big, bald head) and President Bush are not getting much investigating (yet). This cabal of fools and criminals needs a good spanking. Got impeachment?

What's it going to take to bring the Iraq war to an end?

The end to this war will come when the streets of America are again filled with thousands and thousands of citizens, protesting the war, and demanding its end. Unfortunately, it might take a few thousand more American soldiers dying to arrive at that stage. The Democrats can't be trusted to end it. They're thinking about their re-elections. The Iraqi parliament will probably get fired if they demand that the U.S. leave now. Too much has been invested by Bush in his new Embassy, those military bases, and Halliburton's work projects. Poor dictator.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Q & A

Do you think President Bush will pardon Scooter Libby?

The Decider will pardon Mr. Libby, and paint over the lies with his pardon brush, but it will not remove the certainty that the Long War President, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were in cahoots to defame and discredit Joseph Wilson, who was trying to tell the world the truth about Mr. Bush’s tragic and lying war. Nobody will pardon George W. Bush for his calculated and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. The Democrats will have to raise taxes to pay for Bush's incredible and arrogant folly.

Is President Bush reigniting the Cold War with Russia?

No, President Bush is reigniting Wars with the World. Impeachment now seems to have died a quiet death, and now this urinary president is free to continue to urinate on America and the world with his pre-emptive Iraq war. President Bush is smug and smiling because he knows that he is getting away with murder. And the Republicans who want to fill Bush's bloody shoes will bash President Bush's war (while saying that it was right...just not done right). What an unholy and utterly horrible mess Bush has put us and the world in. But the corporations are happy…but not the thousands and thousands of American and Iraqi families who have lost their loved ones.

Should the Republican candidates for president be openly criticizing President Bush, the head of the party?

Why in the hell not? It's good for them since they believe that by slamming Bush it will help them to get elected. But American voters may be saying to themselves something different: Yep, Bush is a bad president, and we're not going to take a chance on any of you Republicans. Most of the Republican candidates think that Bush's war was the right thing, and they say that they can do a better job of losing it than the current head of the party.

June 6, 2007

US Foments Unrest and Spurns Overtures

Countdown to War on Iran


Silently, stealthily, unseen by cameras, the war on Iran has already begun. Many sources confirm that the United States, bent on destabilising the Islamic Republic, has increased its aid to armed movements among the Azeri, Baluchi, Arab and Kurdish ethnic minorities that make up about 40% of the Iranian population. ABC News reported in April that the US had secretly assisted the Baluchi group Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), responsible for a recent attack in which some 20 members of the Revolutionary Guard were killed. According to an American Foundation report (1), US commandos have operated inside Iran since 2004.

President George Bush categorised Iran, along with North Korea and Iraq, as the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address in January 2002. Then in June 2003 he said the US and its allies should make it clear that they "would not tolerate" the construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran.

It is worth recalling the context in which these statements were made. President Mohammed Khatami had repeatedly called for "dialogue among civilisations". Tehran had actively supported the US in Afghanistan, providing many contacts that Washington had used to facilitate the overthrow of the Taliban regime. At a meeting in Geneva on 2 May 2003 between Javad Zaraf, the Iranian ambassador, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan, the Tehran government submitted a proposal to the White House for general negotiations on weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and security, and economic cooperation (2). The Islamic Republic said it was ready to support the Arab peace initiative tabled at the Beirut summit in 2002 and help to transform the Lebanese Hizbullah into a political party. Tehran signed the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty on 18 December 2003, which considerably strengthens the supervisory powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but which only a few countries have ratified.

The US administration swept all these overtures aside since its only objective is to overthrow the mullahs. To create the conditions for military intervention, it constantly brandishes "the nuclear threat". Year after year US administrations have produced alarmist reports, always proved wrong. In January 1995 the director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency said Iran could have the bomb by 2003, while the US defence secretary, William Perry, predicted it would have the bomb by 2000. These forecasts were repeated by Israel's Shimon Peres a year later. Yet last month, despite Iran's progress in uranium enrichment, the IAEA considered that it would be four to six years before Tehran had the capability to produce the bomb.

What is the truth? Since the 1960s, long before the Islamic revolution, Iran has sought to develop nuclear power in preparation for the post-oil era. Technological developments have made it easier to pass from civil to military applications once the processes have been mastered. Have Tehran's leaders decided to do so? There is no evidence that they have. Is there a risk that they may? Yes, there is, for obvious reasons.

During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein's regime, in breach of every international treaty, used chemical weapons against Iran, but there was no outcry in the US, or in France, against these weapons of mass destruction, which had a traumatic effect on the Iranian people. US troops are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran is surrounded by a network of foreign military bases. Two neighbouring countries, Pakistan and Israel, have nuclear weapons. No Iranian political leader could fail to be aware of this situation.

How to prevent escalation?

So how is Tehran to be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, a move that would start a new arms race in a region that is already highly unstable and deal a fatal blow to the non-proliferation treaty? Contrary to common assumptions, the main obstacle is not Tehran's determination to enrich uranium. Iran has a right to do so under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty but it has always said it was prepared to impose voluntary restrictions on that right and to agree to increased IAEA inspections to prevent any possible use of enriched uranium for military purposes.

The Islamic Republic's fundamental concern lies elsewhere. Witness the agreement signed on 14 November 2004 with France, Britain and Germany, under which Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment temporarily on the understanding that a long-term agreement would "provide firm commitments on security issues". Washington refused to give any such commitments and Iran resumed its enrichment programme.

The European Union chose not to pursue an independent line but to follow Washington's lead. The new proposals produced by the five members of the Security Council and Germany in June 2006 contained no guarantee of non-intervention in Iranian affairs. In Tehran's reply to the proposals, delivered in August, it again "suggest[ed] that the western parties who want to participate in the negotiation team announce on behalf of their own and other European countries, to set aside the policy of intimidation, pressure and sanctions against Iran". Only if such a commitment was made could negotiations be resumed.

If not, escalation is inevitable. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as president in June 2005 has not made dialogue any easier, given his taste for provocative statements, particularly about the Holocaust and Israel. But Iran is a big country rich in history and there is more to it than its president. There is much tension within the government and Ahmadinejad had severe setbacks both in the local elections and in elections to the Assembly of Experts in December 2006. There are substantial challenges, economic and social, and forceful demands for more freedom, especially among women and young people. Iranians refuse to be regimented and the only strong card the regime has to win their loyalty is nationalism, a refusal to accept the kind of foreign interference suffered throughout the 20th century.

Despite the disaster in Iraq, there is no indication that Bush has given up the idea of attacking Iran. This is part of his vision of a "third world war" against "Islamic fascism", an ideological war that can end only in complete victory. The demonisation of Iran, aggravated by the attitude of its president, is part of this strategy and may culminate in yet another military venture. That would be a disaster, not only for Iran and the Arab world, but for western, especially European, relations with the Middle East.

Translated by Barbara Wilson

Alain Gresh is editor of Le Monde diplomatique and a specialist on the Middle East