How To Catch A War Criminal - 8 Easy Steps

1. Don't announce that you're coming, because the war criminal will escape.

2. Pick your war criminal. Here are their names, where to find them, and some of the charges against them.

Note: War Criminals travel frequently. Watch http://convictbushcheney.org for notice of when they'll be appearing publicly near you. Below are their home locations.

CALIFORNIA

John Yoo: Professor of Law at Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkeley, California, (but a lawyer with the Pennsylvania bar from which he should be debarred and would be if enough people demanded it) counseled the White House on how to get away with war crimes, wrote this memo promoting presidential power to launch aggressive war, and claimed the power to decree that the federal statutes against torture, assault, maiming, and stalking do not apply to the military in the conduct of the war, and to announce a new definition of torture limiting it to acts causing intense pain or suffering equivalent to pain associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in loss of significant body functions will likely result.

Jay Bybee: federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, headquartered in San Francisco, California, counseled the White House on how to get away with war crimes, including by helping Yoo draft the memo linked above.

William Haynes: Chief Corporate Counsel at the Chevron Corporate Office in San Ramon, California, counseled the White House on how to get away with war crimes, including by drafting memos for Yoo.

Colin Powell: strategic limited partner with Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, appears as a speaker in a series of motivational events called Get Motivated, board member of Revolution Health and of the Council on Foreign Relations, took part in White House meetings personally overseeing and approving torture by authorizing the use of specific torture techniques including waterboarding on specific people, lied to the United Nations about the grounds for war in a failed attempt to legalize a war of aggression, and was in fact a leading liar in making the false case for an illegal war of aggression.

NEW YORK

Henry Kissinger: lives in Kent, Connecticut, and works at Kissinger Associates, 350 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y., had a resume envied by other war criminals long before he advised George W. Bush to commit war crimes. Here's a partial list of his crimes.

Nicholas E. Calio: Citigroup's Executive Vice-President for Global Government Affairs served as a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which planned the marketing of an illegal war of aggression on the basis of lies.

TEXAS

Karen Hughes: lives in Austin, Texas, served as a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which planned the marketing of an illegal war of aggression on the basis of lies.

WASHINGTON, D.C.

David Addington: chief of staff to Dick Cheney in Washington, D.C., counseled the White House on how to get away with war crimes, including by helping Yoo draft the memo linked above, and drafted signing statements for Bush declaring the right to violate laws redundantly banning war crimes including torture and the construction of permanent bases in Iraq and efforts to control Iraq's oil.

Condoleezza Rice: serving as Secretary of State in Washington, D.C., and can be found frequenting shoe stores, served as a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which planned the marketing of an illegal war of aggression on the basis of lies, took part in White House meetings personally overseeing and approving torture by authorizing the use of specific torture techniques including waterboarding on specific people, lied about mushroom clouds, and was in fact a leading liar in making the false case for an illegal war of aggression.

Donald Rumsfeld: lives in Washington, D.C., and at former slave-beating plantation "Mount Misery" on Maryland's Eastern Shore near St. Michael's and a home belonging to Dick Cheney, as well as at an estate outside Taos, New Mexico, took part in White House meetings personally overseeing and approving torture by authorizing the use of specific torture techniques including waterboarding on specific people, and was in fact a leading liar in making the false case for an illegal war of aggression, and pushed for wars of aggression for years as a participant in the Project for a New American Century.

George Tenet: Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., took part in White House meetings personally overseeing and approving torture by authorizing the use of specific torture techniques including waterboarding on specific people, oversaw the Central Intelligence Agency as it engaged in illegal renditions, detentions, torture, murder, and coverups of crimes, as well as helping to build a false case for an illegal war of aggression.

John Ashcroft: has his own lobbying company through which to profit from his government connections: The Ashcroft Group, LLC, 1399 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 950, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202.942.0202, Fax: 202.942.0216, info@ashcroftgroupllc.com took part in White House meetings personally overseeing and approving torture by authorizing the use of specific torture techniques including waterboarding on specific people.

Alberto Gonzales: has hired a criminal-defense lawyer George Terwilliger, partner at White & Case, to defend him, while others have created a trust fund to help pay for his legal expenses, meanwhile Gonzales has been unable to find work as a lawyer himself, so his income comes from speaking engagements, then White House counsel, wrote a memo on January 25, 2002. It explained that under the 1996 War Crimes Act, U.S. officials might be prosecuted for violating the Geneva Conventions for actions in Afghanistan (and future parts of the "war on terror"), with penalties up to and including death. He suggested that Bush declare that the Taliban and Al Qaeda weren't covered by Geneva, to be on the safe side. Bush did so.

Paul Wolfowitz: lives in Chevey Chase, Maryland, and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., advocated illegal war of aggression, and pushed for wars of aggression for years as a participant in the Project for a New American Century.

Doug Feith: serves on the faculty of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., as a Professor and Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy, manufactured, cherry picked, and distorted information, and pressured others to do the same, to help build a false case for an illegal war of aggression, and advocated early and openly for an illegal war of aggression against a "non-al qaeda target."

Elliot Abrams: serves as Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy in Washington, D.C., and wherever he can do the most damage around the world, was a well-established war criminal even before he pushed for wars of aggression for years as a participant in the Project for a New American Century, helped to build a false case for attacking Iraq, and supported a failed coup attempt in Venezuela.

Karl Rove: owns million dollar houses in Washington, D.C., and Florida, and works for Fox News, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal, served as a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which planned the marketing of an illegal war of aggression on the basis of lies, and took part in exposing an undercover agent as retribution for exposing one of WHIG's lies.

I. Lewis Libby: lives in McLean, Virginia, and has been disbarred in Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, served as a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which planned the marketing of an illegal war of aggression on the basis of lies, took part in exposing an undercover agent as retribution for exposing one of WHIG's lies, has already been convicted of obstruction of justice for interfering with investigation, and pushed for wars of aggression for years as a participant in the Project for a New American Century.

Mary Matalin: married to James Carville, both of them addicted to Washington, D.C., served as a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which planned the marketing of an illegal war of aggression on the basis of lies.

Stephen Hadley: serves as National Security Advisor to the President in Washington, D.C., served as a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which planned the marketing of an illegal war of aggression on the basis of lies, and took part in exposing an undercover agent as retribution for exposing one of WHIG's lies.

James R. Wilkinson: works for Bush as Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications in Washington, D.C., served as a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which planned the marketing of an illegal war of aggression on the basis of lies.

John Bolton: lives in Bethesda, Maryland, is a member of a Lutheran Church, works for the law firm Kirkland and Ellis LLP, 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-5793, T: +1 202-879-5000, F: +1 202-879-5200, is associated with the American Enterprise Institute, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Institute of East-West Dynamics, National Rifle Association, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, and the Council for National Policy, helped to launch an illegal war of aggression by disseminating false claims through the State Department while he was under-secretary of state for arms control, and pushed for wars of aggression for years as a participant in the Project for a New American Century.

The war that the war criminals above helped to launch is a war of aggression, the highest crime, understood to contain within it all other war crimes. In fact, the current occupation of Iraq has seen the United States target civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, use antipersonnel weapons including cluster bombs in densely settled urban areas, use white phosphorous as a weapon, use depleted uranium weapons, employ a new version of napalm found in Mark 77 firebombs, engage in collective punishment of Iraqi civilian populations, including by blocking roads, cutting electricity and water, destroying fuel stations, planting bombs in farm fields, demolishing houses, and plowing down orchards, detain people without charge or legal process without the rights of prisoners of war, imprison children, torture, and murder.

3. Form a team. We need teams in California, Texas, New York, and Washington, D.C., among other places. Your mission is to locate a war criminal from the list above in a public place, detain them, handcuff them, phone the police, read the criminal their rights and the charges against them, ask them if they have anything to say in response, videotape the arrest and post it online. Your team should include one or more people who can produce an excellent video and be extremely fast in editing and posting it online. Your team should include people capable of physically detaining your war criminal. Your team should ideally include a lawyer. And, of course, people who can read the charges and question the suspect. Everyone on your team should be able to keep a secret while you're planning your arrest.

4. Prepare to follow this script.

Apprehend and handcuff the war criminal.

Read the war criminal their rights, rights they have denied others:
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."

Read the war criminal the charges against them. See above.

Ask the war criminal if they would like to say anything.

Once you have good video footage, your top priority becomes immediately getting it edited (if necessary) and online.

Turn the war criminal over to the police.

Pass out flyers to passersby.

Send statement to the media.

5. Consult a lawyer to avoid unnecessary risks of violating laws while enforcing the law. According to Wikipedia, "A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a person who is not a sworn law enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, when sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers. Despite the title, the arresting person does not usually have to be a citizen of the country where he is acting, as they are usually designated as any person with arrest powers.... Each state with the exception of North Carolina permits citizen arrests if the commission of felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen... The application of state laws varies widely with respect to ... felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights. Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizen's arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and apply to both civilians and police officers outside their jurisdiction. Detention, being different from an arrest in the fact that a detainee may not be transported without consent, is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property ... A person who makes a citizen's arrest could risk exposing himself to possible lawsuits or criminal charges (such as charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest) if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated." In the case of the war criminals we propose detaining, they are public figures and we have all witnessed their felonies, as detailed above.

A good source of legal advice is the National Lawyers Guild, whose permission we have not asked to post this recommendation, and which does not necessarily support this project: http://www.nlg.org

6. Be prepared to post your video online in multiple places: Youtube, Google, and convictbushcheney.org (for that last one, mailto:david@davidswanson.org ">contact us).

7. Aquire and learn to use handcuffs.

8. Prepare flyers to hand to passersby and a statement to send to the media.

If you have more information on where these war criminals live and work please post it below and we'll add it above.

SOURCE

McClallan's Book Fallout

Today Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) called for former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding the devastating revelations made in his new book on the Bush Administration’s deliberate efforts to mislead the American people into the Iraq War.

“The admissions made by Scott McClellan in his new book are earth-shattering and allege facts to establish that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby – and possibly Vice President Cheney - conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame Wilson matter and that the Bush Administration deliberately lied to the American people in order to take us to war in Iraq. Scott McClellan must now appear before the House Judiciary Committee under oath to tell Congress and the American people how President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and White House officials deliberately orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people.”

“The allegations by this former top White House aide – that Rove and Libby deliberately coordinated their stories in order to obstruct justice in the Plame case, that the President deliberately disregarded contradictory evidence related to Iraq, should outrage every American and Congress must respond by initiating immediate aggressive oversight starting with an appearance by McClellan before the House Judiciary Committee. Any continued obstruction by this Administration to prevent White House officials from appearing before Congress cannot be tolerated by this Congress in the face of these shocking revelations.”

Congressman Wexler has led a nationwide campaign in favor of holding impeachment hearings for Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Military Censorship (Attempt)

The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the United States approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

“Keeping our politics private is a good first step,” he added. “The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”

Mullen said he was inspired to write the essay after receiving a constant stream of legitimate, if troubling, questions while visiting U.S. military personnel around the world, including, “What if a Democrat wins?” and, “What will that do to the mission in Iraq?”

But I don’t buy that line because Kyra Phillips reported that:

CNN’s Kyra Phillips speaks to some Iraqi soldiers about the U.S. presidential election and democracy in Iraq. While they spoke enthusiastically about the American soldiers teaching them discipline and how to effectively combat their enemies in Iraq, the soldiers were less effusive in their praise for those managing the war and their plans for bringing about democracy.

Phillips tried in vain to locate any McCain supporters among the group.

“Just to be perfectly clear here, I did ask them are you following any of the republican candidates?…Do you want to talk about John McCain? Within that whole group, not one wanted a republican in the US presidential seat.

They were all for a democrat.

They were all for that type of change because they said they were living a republican war.”

SOURCE

Hose Bag Bitch

Hillary Clinton had 15 representatives on the 30-member Rules Committee and every single one of Clinton's representatives supported this Rules Committee decision, which passed unanimously; Democratic parties in 48 states followed the rule, but Michigan and Florida chose not to. Subsequently, no Democratic candidate campaigned in either state and no Democratic candidate, except Hillary Clinton was even on the ballot in Michigan.

The Clinton campaign now contends that these wholly undemocratic elections -- even the Stalinist one-candidate election in Michigan -- must count or democracy itself will be imperiled.

Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's representatives on the Rules Committee who voted for the rule barring counting the Michigan and Florida votes, and Hillary's chief negotiator of this issue, was asked recently on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows, "You voted for the Rules Committee decision, but now you are complaining about it. What has changed?" Ickes replied,

"What has changed is that now we are behind."

So, there it is -- there is not an ounce of principle in the Clinton position.

(snip)

Ignoring all rules established for the Democratic primaries, which all Democratic candidates, except Hillary Clinton, followed, the Clintons now also contend that the elaborate system of caucuses and primary votes which have been used for this and prior presidential elections should be ignored in favor of reliance only on popular vote counts.

In other words, 48 states have been actively engaged in following established rules, but now, at the end of the process, the Clintons propose to jettison the rules and substitute their own new interpretation. Not only is the threshold proposal absurd on its face, the Clintons don't even count the popular vote fairly: They include votes in the Michigan primary, where Hillary was the only candidate on the Democratic ballot and Obama got zero votes, and exclude hundreds of thousands of caucus votes in the caucus states. If all votes are counted, Obama wins by every metric, including popular vote, and he currently is 180+ votes ahead in the delegate count.

(snip)

Hillary and Bill are not acting like leaders, they are acting like self-absorbed adolescents, thinking that if they whine loudly enough people will accommodate them. This is not leadership, this is petulance. They will go down in this race, but not without their own sense of righteousness and value intact. This conveniently avoids the unpleasant prospect of actually taking responsibility for why they lost. Introspection does not come easy to the Clintons, but during the next four years, let's hope they try some.

SOURCE

Setting The Stage For Another Attack

A Department of Homeland Security program to strengthen port security has gaps that terrorists could exploit to smuggle weapons of mass destruction in cargo containers, congressional investigators have found.

The report by the Government Accountability Office, being released Tuesday, assesses the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), a federal program established after the September 11, 2001, attacks to deter a potential terrorist strike via cargo passing through 326 of the nation's airports, seaports and designated land borders.

Under the program, roughly 8,000 importers, port authorities and air, sea and land carriers are granted benefits such as reduced scrutiny of their cargo. In exchange, the companies submit a security plan that must meet U.S. Customs and Border Protection's minimum standards and allow officials to verify their measures are being followed.

A 2005 GAO report found many of the companies were receiving the reduced cargo scrutiny without the required full vetting by U.S. Customs, a division of DHS. The agency has since made some improvements, but the new report found that Customs officials still couldn't provide guarantees that companies were in compliance.

Read more

Why Has America Become Dumb?

Kids Camp

Surely nothing that bush has done in his two wretched terms of office—not the invasion and destruction of Iraq, not the overturning of the five-centuries-old tradition of habeas corpus, not his authorization and encouragement of torture, not his campaign of domestic spying—nothing, can compare in its ugliness as his approval, as commander in chief, of the imprisoning of over 2500 children.

According to the US government’s own figures, that is how many kids 17 years and younger have been held since 2001 as “enemy combatants”—often for over a year, and sometimes for over five years. At least eight of those children, some reportedly as young as 10, were held at Guantanamo. They even had a special camp for them there: Camp Iguana. One of those kids committed suicide at the age of 21, after spending five years in confinement at Guantanamo. (Ironically and tragically, that particular victim of the president’s criminal policy, had been determined by the Pentagon to have been innocent only two weeks before he took his own life, but nobody bothered to tell him he was slated for release and a return home to Afghanistan.)

I say bush’s behavior is criminal because since 1949, under the Geneva Conventions signed and adopted by the US, and incorporated into US law under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, children under the age of 15 are classed as “protected persons,” and even if captured while fighting against US forces are to be considered victims, not POWs. In 2002, the Bush administration signed an updated version of that treaty, raising the “protected person” age to all those “under 18.”

Treaties don’t mean much to this president, to the vice president, or to the rest of the administration, but they should mean something to the rest of us.

source

Republicuntardation

The most sweeping takeover of the new millennium didn't take place among the telecoms or the big oil companies, or in Silicon Valley.

It took place in Washington, but we can see and hear and feel its effects nationwide on our televisions, radios, and computer screens. And America is much the worse because of it. I'm talking about the takeover of the Republican Party by its own lunatic fringe, and the Right's hijacking of America.

Yes, the Republican Party has always had its far-right cowboys, its Jesse Helmses and Spiro Agnews. Yet they were removed from the party's more sober core.

But these days, judging by the opinions and actions of the Republicans in office and the party's candidates for president, it has become impossible to tell where this core stops and the fanatical fringe begins. Just look at what the party is endorsing.

We have a Republican Party that continues to back the White House's delusions about Iraq at the expense of our military, our treasure, our safety, and our standing in the world.

We have a mainstream on the Right that supports torture, that confirmed an attorney general nominee who is officially agnostic on torture, and that rallies behind a president who refuses to define what the very word "torture" means.

We have a mainstream that supports -- even applauds -- the behavior of thuggish Blackwater mercenaries, that supports the gutting of our civil liberties, that opposes universal health care, and that has views on immigration that wouldn't have been heard outside a John Birch Society meeting ten years ago.

It can no longer be denied: The right-wing lunatics are running the Republican asylum, and their madness has infected the entire country and poisoned the world beyond.

Right Is Wrong - Ariana Huffington

Got Gas?

What's Iraq got to do with the price of gas?

Would some reporter with access to the Republican presidential candidate please ask John McCain why he wants to continue President Bush's Mideast policy when it has proved so ruinous for American taxpayers?

Because McCain is determined to ignore our economic meltdown and shift the debate to foreign policy, shouldn't he have to explain why an open-ended military presence in the Mideast will make us economically and militarily more secure when the opposite is clearly the case?

Let's not waste too much time on the military side of the equation. The argument that troops on the ground have made us militarily more secure is absurd on its face. American resources and lives have been squandered in an inane effort that McCain aptly criticized before becoming a presidential candidate. As a Senate watchdog, he distinguished himself by sharply denouncing one defense contractor boondoggle after another in cases involving hundreds of billions for modern weapons that had nothing to do with fighting cave-based terrorists. But as a presidential candidate, McCain now unabashedly apologizes for every twist of the downwind spiral of the Bush administration foreign policy, from wasteful weapons to inhuman torture.

McCain's strategy is clearly that of distracting attention from the calamitous economy by sounding the demagogue's alarm about enemies at the gate. This week, McCain again blasted Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on the grounds that he underestimated the threat from Iran while ignoring the vast increase in Iran's power -- an increase actually resulting from Bush eliminating Iran's only effective enemy, Saddam Hussein. The other winners in this folly have been the oil kingdoms that Hussein periodically threatened, led by the Saudi royal family. Seizing upon the opportunity presented by the 9/11 attacks, Bush knocked off not the Saudis, who had produced Osama bin Laden and 15 of his hijacker minions, but rather the royal family's sworn enemy in Iraq, who had absolutely nothing do with 9/11.

And how did the Saudis thank us?

Just check the price of oil, which has increased more than sixfold since 9/11. On Friday, Bush went to dine at Saudi King Abdullah's bizarrely opulent horse farm and pleaded for an increase in oil production, but to no avail. Bush received the same rebuff in April 2005, when oil was selling for $54 a barrel. On Tuesday, it sold for $129, and the price rise is a good measure of Saudi gratitude for the Bush family's unwavering support over past decades. Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, couldn't have been more condescending when he turned down Bush's request with the observation that "presidents and kings have every right, every privilege, to comment or ask or say whatever they want." He added at a press conference, "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

Enough to get the price back down to where it was when we saved your sorry oil-well excuse for a country, you ingrate, Bush might have retorted. But our bold leader was too polite for anything like that. "He didn't punch any tables or shout at anybody," said Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. "I think he was satisfied." Why? Instead of pointing out that the Saudis could easily open their spigots in gratitude for our keeping them in power, the president threatened the Saudi king not with an invasion but with a US recession. "My point to His Majesty," Bush warned in an interview with The New York Times before encountering the great man himself, "is going to be, when consumers have less purchasing power because of high prices of gasoline--in other words, when it affects their families, it could cause this economy to slow down. If the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of oil purchased."

He'll show them -- we'll have a recession, our families will suffer and, boy, will the Saudis be sorry. A regular Teddy Roosevelt. There is no better measure of the failure of Bush's foreign policy than that, five years after we conquered the second-most important pool of oil in the world, the American taxpayers who paid for this grand imperial adventure are rewarded with skyrocketing prices at the pump.

God Told Me

The former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President:

"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

And "now again", bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."

When asked to comment, God said, "I didn't ask him to do anything. Don't blame what this guy does on me."

A Parting Shot?

If there's anything we've learned at this late stage of the bush "administration," it's that the bounds of decency will not restrain it from any action it sets upon.

As this regime enters its (hopefully) last days, we should be on alert for its one last parting gift to a nation and world that has thoroughly rejected bush and his disastrous policies: an unprovoked attack on Iran.

To those not suffering from amnesia about the Iraq debacle, all of the tell-tale indicators have been signaled.

First, Iran has become the bush regime's scapegoat for its easily predicted failures in Iraq, because Shiite Iran naturally exerts more cultural and political influence on its Shiite neighbor than a foreign Christian invader ever could or will.

Second, bush has been systematically removing high-ranking military leaders -- such as former CentCom Commander Admiral William Fallon -- who publicly opposed military strikes on Iran -- and is presumably replacing them with more pliable commanders.

Third, and most critically, bush will strike Iran because he can, and because he believes he will suffer no personal or political repercussions for his actions.

Desperate to escape the judgment of history for the most catastrophic blunder in US history, the same neocon geniuses who brought us the Iraq debacle are now advising bush that he can eliminate Iran's influence in Iraq (which was inevitable the instant we decapitated the secular, Sunni Baathist regime) simply by destroying Iran.

We can be sure that at this very moment, GOP political operatives are crunching the numbers to determine whether the strikes should be timed before or after the November elections. Would the spirit of jingoism and mindless flag waving improve the Republicans' electoral chances? Or would the scenes of unprovoked carnage and dead Iranian children disgust the American electorate enough to ensure a Democratic landslide?

The safer bet would be to time the strikes between the elections and Inauguration Day.

This would ensure that Republicans would not suffer at the ballot box for Bush's "parting gift" to the nation. Of course, the real suffering would be for the Iranians and for any new administration trying to cope with the political and diplomatic nightmare such an attack would create. But as we now know only too well, good governance has never been a high priority
for the busheviks.

How can we prevent this humanitarian, military, political and diplomatic disaster?

First, we must assume that Bush will be issuing unprecedented blanket pardons for everyone -- as well as for corporations -- even peripherally associated with his regime (expect language like "persons, corporations and other entities, named and unnamed") including himself. Legal scholars need to begin addressing the legal viability of a president pardoning himself.

Congress needs to pass a resolution making clear that no "self pardon" will be recognized. Just the threat of extraditing an ex-president for war crimes may be enough to make bush think twice about engaging in another war of aggression.

The unprecedented level of lawlessness rampant in the bush regime, and their potential legal liability, means that these criminals will do everything in their power to prevent the election of a Democratic president and the empowerment of a Democratic Justice Department that could investigate the bush regime's mafiacracy.

Democrats have been shockingly complacent over the threat of wholesale election theft, considering the evidence of Republican ballot manipulation in the 2002 and 2004 elections. Democratic victories in the 2006 elections could have been due simply to an unexpectedly large magnitude of the landslide -- the Republicans just didn't steal it big enough -- a mistake they may not repeat in 2008.

As with many tin-pot dictators who have seized power by claiming an external threat, we cannot discount the possibility that bush will proclaim a grave national security crisis -- pos-
sibly related to his attack on Iran -- that must, regrettably, delay the 2008 elections or
the inauguration of the new president.

This shouldn't be considered aluminum-foil-hat paranoia since bush has ruled as a dictator in all but name since September 11, 2001.

Since then, Congress has shamefully abdicated and shirked its constitutionally sworn duty to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution.

As we reach the end of the constitutionally mandated term of the bush regime, Congress, the courts, the military and the American people may be forced to quit just paying lip service to our often proclaimed but recently neglected devotion to our constitutional ideals.

We should remember that the constitutional oath of office refers to protecting and defending the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Right now, it's a domestic threat that has demonstrated an open contempt for, and eager willingness to abandon, our constitutional traditions, and which poses a far greater danger to our liberties than any foreign threat.

And it comes straight out of Washington.

Wake the fuck up America.

source

Republicans For Obama

Barack Obama elicits laughs from audiences at his political rallies by telling them about Republicans who approach him and whisper their support.

But for the GOP, it’s no joke. Disillusioned with President Bush and unimpressed with presumptive nominee John McCain, many young Republicans and former Reaganites alike have gravitated toward the charismatic Obama, despite his liberal voting record. They are attracted by his promise to change the way government works and to end years of political divisiveness.

“I think everybody has different reasons but I think he’s seen as a fresh start for this county, and people like what they see,” said Susan Eisenhower, who endorsed Obama in February despite being a lifelong Republican and the granddaughter of GOP President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“There are many other Republicans [who support Obama],” Eisenhower said. “I’ve just heard from a ton of them.”

Take action.

Educate yourself.

Get to know the next President of the United States!

Barack Obama Official Website

Tell bush To Shut The Hell Up!

Tonight, Keith Olbermann unleashed what may well have been his angriest, most blistering Special Comment yet, aimed squarely at his favorite target: The American Jackass bush.

Olbermann was responding to bush's claim that he had given up golf in honor of the Iraq war — and his assertion that a Democratic president withdrawing from Iraq would "eventually lead to another attack on the United States" — a statement Olbermann called "ludicrous, infuriating, holier-than-thou and most importantly bone-headedly wrong."

Olbermann continued in that vein for a full 12 minutes (or 2,000 words), frequently raising his voice and spitting out his words in disgust.

Tonight on my show, I will be playing K.O.'s patriotic rant in its entirety.

Olbermann turned bush's reference to "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives" around and threw it back at him, saying that such killers were "those in -- or formerly in -- your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes." It didn't get any milder — saying that, to bush, "freedom is just a brand name," and pointing out that al Qaeda in Iraq was a result of the invasion: "Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, bush!"

Olbermann also criticized bush's statement that he was "told by people" that there were WMDs in Iraq: "People? What people?... bush, you destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the Congress's throat, the way you jammed it down the nation's throat."

Olbermann saved his most vicious scorn for bush's no-golf pledge.

"Golf, sir? Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq?...You, bush, let their sons and daughters be killed. Sir, to show your solidarity with them you gave up golf?"

He then went on to lambaste bush for failing to keep to that pledge — ostensibly made in August 2003 — and showing photos of bush playing golf in October 2003. "bush, I hate to break it to you 6 1/2 years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people," said Olbermann, "But the war in Iraq is not about you....It is not, bush, about your grief when American after American comes home in a box."


READ THE ARTICLE HERE

The Decay Of America

When I think of bush I think of the emperor Nero who fiddled while his city burned to the ground around him.

While we continue to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq, a study over at Scholars & Rogues finds that that money is desperately needed here at home, as our infrastructure is literally crumbling from beneath us.

The United States has much more than failing bridges to find, fund and fix. The proposals of the remaining presidential candidates do little to inspire faith that they understand the breadth of the problem or have the political skill, will and courage to address it forthrightly.

In December, a commission established by Congress in 2005 under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provided the sobering statistics. FOUND HERE

The United States needs to spend $225 billion annually — more than twice what it does now — for the next 50 years. That’s more than $11 trillion worth of fix-ups on surface transportation systems alone.

Although stump speeches filled with rhetoric about bridges and roads may not be the “sexiest” thing a pol can talk about, the reality is that our country is falling apart. And without the infusion of funds and the commission of a major public works program, things are only going to get worse.

NFL or NBA?

36 have been accused of spousal abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud

19 have been accused of writing bad checks

117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

3 have done time for assault

71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

8 have been arrested for shoplifting

21 currently are defendants in lawsuits, and

84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is?

NBA or NFL?

Give up yet?

ITS Neither!

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.

The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year.

Designed to keep the rest of us in line.

STUPID fucking American's!

A Dog's Life

As she makes her way through the hospital wards, Billie-Jean keeps up an impressive pace.

She has to if she is going to see all the patients who are waiting for her. Wearing her official uniform, she looks neat and trim, and despite how busy she is, she always has time to stop if someone wants to say hello or slip her a Bonio.

You see, Billie-Jean isn't a ward sister doing the rounds or a doctor bringing vital medicine, she's an Irish terrier. But despite the fact she's a canine, not human, carer, her medical value is second-to-none because she is a Pets As Therapy dog.

Pets As Therapy is a charity that takes pet dogs and cats to hospitals, hospices, residential care homes, day centres and special-needs schools. It was formed in 1983, explains chief executive Maureen Hennis, by a group of pet owners who were convinced that their animals could help other people. "At that time, people were moving into residential accommodation and nursing homes, and they had to give up their own pets," she says. "This wasn't only making them sad and depressed, sometimes it was actually making them ill."

The importance of regular contact with domestic animals has been highlighted by recent research conducted by the University of Minnesota. According to the study, having a cat around the house can cut the risk of having a heart attack or a stroke by almost half. After studying nearly 4,500 adults aged between 30 and 75 for 10 years, it was found that cat owners had a 40 per cent lower risk of suffering a fatal heart attack.

Continued Here

Go-Bama!

The amazement was on their faces.

Hundreds waited for Barack Obama on that evening in South Carolina, 15 weeks ago, to claim victory — a surprising victory, surprisingly large.

And amazing it was.

It made it possible for him to stand today on the verge of being the first black person ever nominated for president by a major party.

One could guess the thoughts of the blacks and whites in that crowd: Can you believe that our state — South Carolina, first to secede and first to open fire in the Civil War — is now catapulting a black man to the front of the presidential contest in a year that bodes well for Democrats?

"Race doesn't matter," some began to chant. "Race doesn't matter!"

The cry soon gave way to more familiar chants of "Yes we can," and everyone in the auditorium surely knew that race does still matter in so many ways. But in a pinch-me moment, they seemed to realize that a barrier had been broken with a swiftness and certainty that even they had not foreseen.

Even more astounding, the man vaulting ahead of the universally known former first lady, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, had been a state legislator only four years earlier — a lawyer with no fame, wealth or family connections.

Now, the entire nation and countless foreigners are absorbing a moment that had seemed decades away, if possible at all. Smart strategists and rank-and-file voters ponder how Obama rose so far so fast, and theories abound. Historians will sort it out someday, but Obama's blend of oratory, biography, optimism and cool confidence come to mind most immediately.

It's not just about him, of course. If America can seriously think of putting a black man in the White House, surely it must also profoundly rethink the relevance of race, the power of prejudice, the logic of affirmative action and other societal forces that have evolved slowly through the eras of Jim Crow, desegregation and massive immigration.

Maybe the toughest question is this:

Is Obama, with his incandescent smile and silky oratory, a once-in-a-century phenomenon who will blast open doors only to see them quickly close on less extraordinary blacks?

Or is he the lucky and well-timed beneficiary of racial dynamics that have changed faster than most people realized, a trend that presumably will soon yield more black governors, senators, mayors and council members?

Presidential campaigns have destroyed many bright and capable politicians. But there's ample evidence that Obama is something special, a man who makes difficult tasks look easy, who seems to touch millions of diverse people with a message of hope that somehow doesn't sound Pollyannaish.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, a black Maryland Democrat who endorsed Obama early, says the Illinois senator convinces people of all races that Americans as a society, and as individuals, can achieve higher goals if they try.

TO ME, a Fed Up American, that WAS the American Way before bush took office!

Read the article in its entirety here.

Another DOH! Moment

Haven't we had enough of this bumbling idiocy in the last eight years?

What a fucking idiot.

Is THIS what we want to represent America to the world?

Sure Fire Way To End The OCCUPATION Of Iraq NOW!

Take 1 Minute to End the Killing:

Congress Members have received thousands of phone calls, and some of them are committing to voting no on Iraq funding. The vote won't happen until next week, so keep the calls coming: Call your Congress Member now at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote No on the war funding.

More Detail:

Pelosi does not have the votes to pass the Rule, a procedural vote that must pass prior to votes on each of the three amendments (1. war money, 2. a nonbinding "timeline goal," re-banning of torture and permanent bases, redundantly banning a Bush-Maliki treaty without consent of Senate or both houses of Congress, and forcing Iraqis to pay for the reconstruction, 3. other spending including military spending and veterans spending).

She doesn't have the votes because of Republican opposition to the whole maneuver (which will involve amending a bill that's already passed in order to avoid a vote on the whole package - except for the Rule vote), and because of "blue dog" (right-wing) Democratic outrage over spending some $11 billion on something useful when they want to stay focused on wasting over $100 billion on killing. Democrats who do plan to vote No on the war funding have not threatened to vote No on the Rule. But they should if they want to block this thing.

If Pelosi buys off the blue dogs somehow, progressives could still step in and block the war money by blocking the Rule. There may be some progressive resistance to the Rule anyway, because Lee and Kucinich both want to be permitted to bring up amendments. (Lee's would resrict funding to a withdrawal. Kucinich's would ban the use of funds for attacking Iran, Syria, etc.)

So, call your Congress Member now at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote No on the war funding and on any Rule that would bring it up for a vote! And tell them to make their position clear to the Speaker.

Tell them that you will REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER.

Make clear to them that voting for either of the other two amendments will be no excuse for voting for the war funding amendment.

You can remind them (92 of them) of this letter in which they committed to voting No.

Insanity

INSANITY is defined as repeating one mistaken action again and again, each time expecting a better result that never comes.

Prime example: the United States in Iraq.

Washington perceived a weapons of mass destruction threat from Saddam Hussein, but instead of responding with diplomacy - internationally coordinated weapons inspections - it went to war. When Saddam Hussein was toppled, the initiative should have passed from the Pentagon to a State Department-led program of stabilization and reconstruction, but instead a crudely violent military occupation was begun.

Diplomacy was once again rejected.

Today, the United States, fearing a geo-political setback that will undercut the broader "war on terror," is putting the diehard goal of military "victory" ahead of the diplomatic initiatives that alone can enable the reconstruction of Iraqi society. The needed spirit of cooperation among Iraqi factions, and from other nations, will never materialize as long as the United States pursues the fantasy that its armed might will at last prevail.

Once again, diplomacy is being rejected in favor of war.

This is insane.

Given the mayhem that continues to unfold in Iraq, bush is properly mocked for having stood before that "Mission Accomplished" banner five years ago. But a failure to distinguish between the aggressive war that overthrew Saddam Hussein and the collapse of Iraqi social order that followed is part of what fuels the ongoing US mistake.

However misconceived, the project of ridding the world of Saddam and his Ba'athist regime was indeed a military operation, and it succeeded. But bringing order to a post-Saddam Iraq, especially once sectarian rivalries were set loose, was not a project for which the US war machine was remotely suited.

The unilateral character of Bush's intervention made multilateral civic reconstruction after Saddam impossible, with other nations content to let Washington stew in its own arrogance. "Coalition" notwithstanding, the almost exclusively US occupation became the inflammable medium in which sectarian disputes flared, with Iraq's warring parties united only in seeing that occupation as an enemy.

Let's call this repeated insanity the mistake of "supermilitarism," choosing war over diplomacy, and expecting order to follow, instead of chaos.

Read the article in its entirety here.

Fits the definition PERFECTLY!

Chemical Soldier

Through it all, it seems, the human body and its fleshy weaknesses keep getting in the way of warfare.

Just as in the health clinics of the nation, the first waypoint in the military effort to redress these foibles is a pharmaceutical one. The catch is, we're really not that great at it. In the case of speed, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency itself notes a few unwanted snags like addiction, anxiety, aggression, paranoia and hallucinations. For side-effects like insomnia, the Air Force issues "no-go" pills like temazepam alongside its "go" pills. Psychosis, though, is a wee bit trickier.

Far from getting discouraged, the working consensus appears to be that we just haven't gotten the drugs right yet. In recent years, the U.S., the UK and France - among others - have reportedly been funding investigations into a new line-up of military performance enhancers. The bulk of these drugs are already familiar to us from the lists of substances banned by international sporting bodies, including the stimulant ephedrine, non-stimulant "wakefulness promoting agents" like modafinil (aka Provigil) and erythropoietin, used to improve endurance by boosting the production of red blood cells.

As the chemical interventions grow bolder and more sophisticated, we should not be surprised that some are beginning to cast their eyes beyond droopy eyelids and sore muscles. Chief among the new horizons is the alluring notion of psychological prophylactics: drugs used to pre-empt the often nasty effects of combat stress on soldiers, particularly that perennial veteran's bugaboo known as post-traumatic stress disorder syndrome. In the U.S., where roughly two-fifths of troops returning from combat deployments are presenting serious mental health problems, PTSD has gone political in form of the Psychological Kevlar Act, which would direct the Secretary of Defense to implement "preventive and early-intervention measures" to protect troops against "stress-related psychopathologies."

Proponents of the "Psychological Kevlar" approach to PTSD may have found a silver bullet in the form of propranolol, a 50-year-old beta-blocker used on-label to treat high blood pressure, and off-label as a stress-buster for performers and exam-takers. Ongoing psychiatric research has intriguingly suggested that a dose of propranolol, taken soon after a harrowing event, can suppress the victim's stress response and effectively block the physiological process that makes certain memories intense and intrusive. That the drug is cheap and well tolerated is icing on the cake.

Propranolol has already been dubbed the "mourning after pill," largely by those who argue that its military use amounts to medicating away pangs of conscience. For the time being, though, we can set aside our visions of zombies with guns, since the tranquilizing effects of beta-blockers are unlikely to permit their widespread use on the battlefield. But pharmacology moves more swiftly with each passing year - especially when helped along by defense-research dollars - and we may need to revive those visions sooner than we think.

READ MORE

Are You Fed Up Yet?

Being a Fed Up American is about social activism and making a difference.

One of the most important things was to make myself controversial and give people a reason to listen.

Whether you like me or hate me, disagree or agree with me doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot because I’m not here to make friends or enemies.

I am here because I am Fed Up with the flawed systems of government that has stripped away my freedoms. My liberties. My rights as an American guaranteed to me under the U.S. Constitution.

Oh sure, I still have the freedom to rant and rave and voice my opinions in a very public forum – FOR NOW - but how many of the freedoms that I have lost would be considered too many?

ONE is too many.

In bush’s fake war on terror, American’s have lost several of their freedoms, essentially giving victory to the terrorists. HE is responsible for the terrorism in the world today and he accomplished this with his complete failure in Iraq, where the terrorists were once remote but now thrive.

America has lost AGAIN.

38 Years Later

Shouldn't we, as Americans learn from our history?

Or is our history just so fucking bad that we just ignore and forget the valuable lessons that these horrible events have taught?

REMEMBER!

EDUCATE YOURSELF!

LEARN!

TAKE ACTION!

GET OFF YOUR ASS!

DO SOMETHING!

Before its too late.

War Crimes

This Is What Your Vote For Hillary Will Get

Crazy Old Grampa John

The DNC’s “100 years” ad targeting John McCain drew the predictably ire of the Republican Party this week, with McCain allies arguing that McCain doesn’t want to keep the war going through 2108, he’s just willing to leave U.S. troops in Iraq there indefinitely to help maintain the peace.

Now McCain has changed his mind on multiple of occasions about whether this is realistic, but for now, he seems to sincerely believe that Iraqis would not only allow the United States to maintain a Korea-like presence in Iraq for decades to come, but that such a presence is actually necessary.

This strikes me as a pretty ridiculous policy, but let’s take it a step further.

McCain is willing to leave troops in Iraq for up to a century after the war ends. Got it. But how long do we keep U.S. troops in Iraq during the war? As it turns out, that’s indefinite, too.

First, if McCain doesn’t envision a 100-year American front-line combat presence in Iraq, how long is he willing to keep U.S. forces in that role?

So far, all he has said is that the United States should withdraw only if it concludes that the Iraq mission is unachievable or when it has achieved success, which he defines as the establishment of “a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state.”

McCain has not said when, but he has pledged that Iraqi units will eventually assume the major combat responsibility. That prompts the next question McCain should address: What would then become the mission for the U.S. forces he wants to maintain in Iraq?

McCain hasn’t been able to answer either question.

He hasn’t even tried.

Crooks and Liars

The ULTIMATE Insult

Everyone knows McCain is a former prisoner of war, but did you know he refuses to support a bipartisan effort to modernize the GI Bill and has voted against nearly every effort to increase funding for healthcare and disability benefits for wounded soldiers?

Did you know that Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) gave him a D+ when they scored his voting record.

Do you know that he voted with the interests of Disabled American Veterans (DAV) only 20 percent of the time?

Take a moment to look at his record:

In 2005 and 2006, McCain voted against expanding mental healthcare and readjustment counseling for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs.

"There was an effort to increase the budget for veterans' healthcare beyond what President [George W.] Bush had requested as part of his budget," DAV spokesperson Dave Autry explains. "The idea was to increase funding for veterans' healthcare by cutting back on tax breaks for the wealthy. The proposals were pushed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans in almost straight party-line votes."

In other words, John McCain's votes indicate he would rather give tax cuts to the rich than care for wounded veterans (Neither McCain's campaign office, nor his Senate press secretary responded to telephone and email inquiries for this story).

McCain's vote also helped defeat a proposal by Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow that would have made veterans' healthcare an entitlement program like social security, so that medical care would not become a political football to be argued over in Congress each budget cycle.

Up until recently, these votes hadn't haunted John McCain. Reporters habitually rehashed his story of heroism four decades ago without looking at his voting record in the present. But now that he's the presumptive Republican nominee for president, a coalition of veterans groups, liberal activists, and Democratic PACs have decided to target McCain over his failure to support S.22, a bipartisan effort to improve the GI Bill.

The bill, by Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., would bring back WWII-era measures that provided vets with full college tuition along with room and board. Right now, those vets who try to use the GI Bill to attend school are eligible to receive only $1,100 a month for a maximum of three years. It is an amount that doesn't come close to covering the cost of a modern college education.

So far 57 senators have signed on as co-sponsors. But the bill remains nine votes short of the supermajority necessary to kill a filibuster.

"It's time for Sen. McCain to stand up for veterans and be a leader," the chairman of VoteVets, Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz, said in a statement. "The success or failure of this bill largely rests on his shoulders. He is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. If he signs onto the bill, it will pass and become law. If he doesn't support it, he needs to explain why he doesn't."

READ THE COMPLETE STORY HERE

Help The Economy - DON'T Cash Your Stimulus Check

Why bother?

Is it REALLY going to help you?

If every American said, "No thank you" to Bush's stimulus check and refused to cash them, the value of the dollars in your pocket right now, in terms of their purchasing power would go up by a factor greater than the face value ($600) of the stimulus check. In other words, if you didn't spend these checks, you'd be the richer for it.

The reason being that America does not have a hard-money economy, it's a debt-based fiat currency economy. All the money in circulation in America has been borrowed and then re-lent. So borrowing more money ($168 billion for the stimulus package) and then re-lending it to Americans, as Bush is doing, only increases the debt load and debases the value of the currency outstanding (against a backdrop of stagnant wages and minuscule interest rates for savers).

If an American was planning to spend $40K this year on food, clothing, shelter, health and various other expenses and they were hoping to defray some of that cost thanks to Bush's stimulus check understand that by simply adding another $168 billion of debt (the cost of the stimulus package) on top of America's current multi-trillion debt load will continue the Bush-Paulson-Benanke trend of debasing the purchasing power of your money and, therefore, raise the price of goods and services by more than the $600 'gift' (without a commensurate rise in wages or increase in interest paid on savings).

This is why America's debt problems won't go away. Every dollar spent adds debt and spawns more fiat currency issuance which has the effect of decreasing the purchasing power of the U.S. dollars in your pocket. Bush tries to make up the difference by borrowing even more; borrowing 340 million a day to fund the war and close to 3 billion a day to cover U.S. operating expenses, not to mention Wall Street borrowing over $30 billion a day to keep their Ponzi scheme going. All this borrowing keeps alive the vicious financial spiral trending lower towards permanent currency debasement and possible sovereignty loss.