Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

"Pentagon leaders warn insurgency is still strong - Kennedy urges Rumsfeld to resign over Iraq" 
 
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press
First published: Friday, June 24, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Iraqi insurgency is as active as six months ago and more foreign fighters are emerging, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East said Thursday.

Told by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, D-Mich., that his assessment of the insurgency contradicted Vice President Dick Cheney's, Abizaid said: "I gave you my opinion."

Cheney later Thursday defended his recent statement that the insurgency is in its "last throes," calling the violence is a final convulsion before the militants collapse.

"But I think we're strong enough to defeat them."

"I think we're strong enough to defeat them?"

DON'T YOU KNOW, DICK?

Is this guy Cheney for real?

What are we up against in Iraq?

3,000 insurgents?

And we have over 100,000 troops over there, riding around like sitting ducks in heavily armored HUMVEES that can't get out of their own way, with all the weight that they are carrying, and are unstable, as well, because of all that extra weight?

Iraq is the size of what, Montana, maybe?

Iraq has what, 20 million people, while we have 294 MILLION?

Incredible!

That anybody buys a single word this Cheney says!

And what exactly does he know about war, and insurgencies?

He was never in uniform!

He "didn't have the time" for it, remember?

Viet Nam?

Anybody remember what Dickie "BOY" Cheney did in the Viet Nam war?

Yes, little Johnny, you are dead right!

He sat on his dead ***, and he did not go!

And now he's an expert!

Yeah, Dick, that's right, you must be!

Yes, Dick, yes, Dick, yes, Dick ....

Right, right ....

Of course, Dick ....

[Livyjr]

"I think we're strong enough to defeat them?"

DON'T YOU KNOW, DICK?

"Democrats blast Rove for 9/11 talk - Clinton, Schumer tell White House aide to take back remarks about terror attacks disparaging liberals"

By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Friday, June 24, 2005

ALBANY -- A battle broke out Thursday between New York's Democrats and Republicans over remarks made about the 9/11 attacks by President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, at a state Conservative Party fund-raiser in Manhattan.

Democratic U.S. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer said Rove should apologize for comments he made Wednesday night they considered critical of Democrats.

At the fund-raiser, Rowe said: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Rove also said: "Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said, 'We will defeat our enemies.'"

"Liberals saw what happened to us and said, 'We must understand our enemies.' "

Joined by state Democratic Party Chairman Herman "Denny" Farrell, Clinton and Schumer called on Republican Gov. George Pataki, who also spoke at the event, to repudiate Rove's comments.

But the governor refused, calling Clinton's request "hypocritical."

Clinton said Rove's lofty position as Bush's deputy chief of staff made an apology from him all the more necessary.

"To go to New York City and say what he said is just almost unimaginable," she said.

"Either he said something in a hasty, ill-conceived, reckless moment ... or he said it deliberately, as part of a continuing effort to divide Americans."

Pataki said he saw no reason to condemn Rove when Clinton had not done so when her fellow Democrats made controversial statements.

He cited Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has called Republicans "evil" and "corrupt," and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, who recently apologized for comparing America's treatment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to the Nazis and Soviet gulags.

"I have absolutely no intention of asking (Rove) to apologize," Pataki said, adding that he didn't consider Rove's remarks divisive.

"Senator Clinton might think about her propensity to allow outrageous statements from the other side that are far beyond political dialogue."

State GOP Chairman Stephen Minarik said, "Karl Rove was right" and accused Clinton of "trying to politicize acts of terrorism committed on our turf."

The controversy reached the White House on Thursday when Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Rove was "pointing out differences that exist in how we approach the war on terrorism."

Elizabeth Benjamin can be reached at 454-5081 or by e-mail at ebenjamin@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

"Democrats blast Rove for 9/11 talk - Clinton, Schumer tell White House aide to take back remarks about terror attacks disparaging liberals" 
 
By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Friday, June 24, 2005

Rove also said: "Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said, 'We will defeat our enemies.'"

"Liberals saw what happened to us and said, 'We must understand our enemies.' "

Like Dick "The Mouth" Cheney, Karl Rove also was too good to ever wear a uniform, and of course, that is probably a blessing to all those who never had to serve with him, as a result!

And like Dick Cheney, now, of course, Karl Rove is an expert on military matters, despite the fact that he knows nothing at all about them, other than what he hears others talking about, and if Karl Rove had less of an ego, what he might have understood is that IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR ENEMY, YOUR ENEMY CONTROLS YOU, THROUGH YOUR IGNORANCE OF HIM.

Giap knew that, and he knew OUR arrogance, and so, he played us like a Stradivarius, and we didn't win, because when the weak man knows he's weak, and accepts it, he can beat a strong man who knows he's strong, and so, never considers HOW he might be weak, since in his mind, he is strong, and strong always wins!

Well, guess what, folks!

That's BULL ****!

You win because you do know your enemy, and so, you do not let him use either his strength, or his weakness against you, to his advantage, but that is intellectual, and there is where Karl Rove and that crowd of his are just plumb lost, because they have contempt for intellect, and so, they are just plain STUPID, instead, and right proud of it, too, they are!

[Livyjr]

Like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove also was too good to ever wear a uniform, and of course, that is probably a blessing to all those who never had to serve with him, as a result!

And like Dick Cheney, now, of course, Karl Rove is an expert on military matters, despite the fact that he knows nothing at all about them, other than what he hears others talking about, and if Karl Rove had less of an ego, what he might have understood is that IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR ENEMY, YOUR ENEMY CONTROLS YOU, THROUGH YOUR IGNORANCE OF HIM.

"Make America Safe, Not Divided"

Excerpts of remarks by Senator John Kerry on the Senate floor on Thursday, June 23, 2005.

"None of us here will ever forget the hours after September 11... and the remarkable response of the American people as we came together as one to answer the attack on our homeland.... [I]t brought out the best of all of us in America."

"That spirit of our country should never be reduced to a cheap, divisive political applause line from anyone who speaks for the President of the United States."

"I am proud, as my colleagues on this side are, that after September 11, all of the people of this country rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger."

"There were no Democrats, there were no Republicans, there were only Americans."

"That is why it is really hard to believe that last night in New York... the most senior adviser to the President of the United States [was] purposely twisting those days of unity in order to divide us for political gain."

"Rather than focusing attention on Osama bin Laden and finding him or rather than focusing attention on just smashing al-Qaida and uniting our effort, as we have been, he is, instead, challenging the patriotism of every American who is every bit as committed to fighting terror as is he."

Just days after 9/11, the Senate voted 98 to nothing, and the House voted 420 to 1, to authorize President Bush to use all necessary and appropriate force against terror.

And after the bipartisan vote, President Bush said:

"I'm gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action."

"It sends a clear message."

"Our people are together and we will prevail."

That is not the message that was sent by Karl Rove in New York City last night.

Last night, he said: "No more needs to be said about" their "motives."

I think a lot more needs to be said about Karl Rove's motives because they are not the people's motives..."

"They are not the motives of a nation that found unity in that critical moment -- Democrat and Republican alike, all of us as Americans."

If the President really believes his own words, if those words have meaning, he should at the very least expect a public apology from Karl Rove.

And frankly, he ought to fire him.

If the President of the United States knows the meaning of those words, then he ought to listen to the plea of Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband when the Twin Towers came crashing down.

She said: "If you are going to use 9/11, use it to make this nation safer than it was on 9/11."

Karl Rove doesn't owe me an apology and he doesn't owe Democrats an apology.

He owes the country an apology.

He owes Kristen Breitweiser and a lot of people like her, those families, an apology.

He owes an apology to every one of those families who paid the ultimate price on 9/11 and expect their government to be doing all possible to keep the unity of their country and to fight an effective war on terror.

The fact is, millions of Americans ... are asking Washington for honesty, for results, and for leadership -- not for political division.

Before Karl Rove delivers another political assault, he ought to stop and think about those families and the unity of 9/11.

[Livyjr]

"Make America Safe, Not Divided"

Excerpts of remarks by Senator John Kerry on the Senate floor on Thursday, June 23, 2005.

"Rather than focusing attention on Osama bin Laden and finding him or rather than focusing attention on just smashing al-Qaida and uniting our effort, as we have been, he is, instead, challenging the patriotism of every American who is every bit as committed to fighting terror as is he."

I think a lot more needs to be said about Karl Rove's motives because they are not the people's motives..."

"They are not the motives of a nation that found unity in that critical moment -- Democrat and Republican alike, all of us as Americans."

If the President really believes his own words, if those words have meaning, he should at the very least expect a public apology from Karl Rove.

And frankly, he ought to fire him.

Dear Livyjr,

Just hours after learning about an outrageous speech delivered by Karl Rove, President Bush's most senior advisor, I went to the Senate floor -- and I spoke from my heart.

I want to share those words with you -- not as a Democrat or Republican, not as a liberal or conservative -- but as an American.

I've attached part of my speech to the end of this email.

I hope you will join me right now in signing an open letter to the President urging him to thoroughly reject Karl Rove's purposeful attack on the patriotism of those who dare ask the tough questions that best protect American troops.

Sign our open letter to President Bush now:

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php

This isn't the first time that Karl Rove and other White House officials have sought to divide America in ways that make it harder to keep our country safe and our democracy strong.

But, it should be the last.

That's why I ended my speech with a call on President Bush to fire Karl Rove.

It is the only way the President can make it clear that he rejects Rove's effort to distort one of the most unified and patriotic moments in American history into a cheap, divisive, political applause line.

That, of course, is what is most outrageous about Karl Rove's claim that President Bush's political opponents offered "therapy and understanding for our attackers."

It isn't true.

In the days after 9/11, there were no Democrats, no Republicans.

We were all Americans, standing together.

President Bush acknowledged that unity in a clear and compelling way at the time.

Now, Karl Rove is purposely twisting those days of unity in order to divide us for political gain.

I hope you will act right now to join a growing chorus of Americans calling on the President to fire Karl Rove.

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php

Please act right now.

Sign our open letter to the President and pass it on to others.

All Americans have to speak with one powerful voice in response to this outrage.

I will continue speaking out and I know I can count on you to stand with me.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

[Livyjr]

"Make America Safe, Not Divided"

Excerpts of remarks by Senator John Kerry on the Senate floor on Thursday, June 23, 2005.

If the President of the United States knows the meaning of those words, then he ought to listen to the plea of Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband when the Twin Towers came crashing down.

She said: "If you are going to use 9/11, use it to make this nation safer than it was on 9/11."

Karl Rove doesn't owe me an apology and he doesn't owe Democrats an apology.

He owes the country an apology.

He owes Kristen Breitweiser and a lot of people like her, those families, an apology.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/feat...ts.html#a003103

06.23.2005 Kristen Breitweiser

Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11"

Mr. Rove, the first thing that I would like to address is Afghanistan - the place that anyone with a true “understanding of 9/11” knows is a nation that actually has a connection to the 9/11 attacks.

One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden - the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks.

In the meantime, Afghanistan has carried out democratic elections, but continues to suffer from extreme violence and unrest.

Poppy production (yes, Karl, the drug trade) is at an all time high, thus flooding the world market with heroin.

And of course, the oil pipeline (a.k.a. the Caspian Sea pipeline) is better protected by U.S. troops who now have a “legitimate” excuse to be in that part of Afghanistan.

Interesting isn't it Karl that the drug “rat line” parallels the oil pipeline.

(Yet, with all those troops guarding that same sliver of land, can you please explain how those drugs keep getting through?)

Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important?

Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages.

Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive.”

Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance.

We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run,” and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about".

Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run.

He looked tan, rested, and calm.

He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.

Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations.

Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that.

But, when you say that “moderation and restraint” don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you.

Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran.

(Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I digress.)

More to the point, Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war?

Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war?

Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq?

No, you didn't.

It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort.

When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training.

Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq?

Why weren't their vehicles armored?

Why didn't they have protective vests?

Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation?

And Karl, when our troops come home – be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs – you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country.

You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night.

Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care.

To me, that is being patriotic.

To me, that is how you support our troops.

To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.

For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks?

Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too.

First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks.

Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD".

Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man".

And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."

Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed.

America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq.

Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world.

Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq.

These facts speak for themselves.

(And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)

Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11.

Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission?

Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget?

Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners?

Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling?

Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could “understand” what happened on 9/11?

Since the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, have you helped bring to fruition any of the commission's recommendations?

Have you truly made our homeland safer by hardening/eliminating soft targets?

Because, to me rebuilding a tower that is 1,776 feet tall where the World Trade Center once stood seems to be only providing more soft targets for the terrorists to hit.

Moreover, your support for the use of nuclear energy seems to be providing even more soft targets.

Tell me, while you write your nifty little speeches about nuclear power, do you explain to your audience how our nuclear plants will be protected against terrorist attack or infiltration?

What assurances do you give that nuclear waste will not find its way into terrorist's dirty bombs and onto our city streets?

And, how do you assure your audience that the shipment of radioactive material will not become a terrorist target as it rolls through their own backyards?

To date, you have done practically nothing to secure our ports, nuclear power plants, and mass transportation systems.

Imagine if the billions of dollars you spent in Iraq were spent more wisely on those things here at home.

Imagine what sort of alternative energy resources (bio-diesel, wind power, solar power, and hybrid automobiles) could have been researched and funded in the past three years.

Talk about regaining the respect and support of the world, that is the one way to do it.

Karl, if you “understand 9/11”, then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism.

By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists.

Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries.

Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil.

Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"?

Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?

Finally Karl, please “understand” that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us.

Those of us with a pure and comprehensive “understanding of 9/11” know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America.

That didn't happen.

Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.

It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met.

Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world.

In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?

Posted at 06:21 PM | permalink

[Livyjr]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/feat...ts.html#a003103

06.23.2005 Kristen Breitweiser

Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11"

More to the point, Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war?

Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war?

Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq?

No, you didn't.

Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world.

In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?

"Bush trying to win over Americans on Iraq"

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
Last updated: 1:56 p.m., Saturday, June 25, 2005

WASHINGTON -- As public support for his Iraq policy declines, President Bush is working to convince wary Americans that he has a military and political strategy for success in the war in which 1,730 U.S. troops have been killed.

In his radio address on Saturday, Bush warned that there is likely to be more tough fighting to come in Iraq.

And, as he did in his meeting at the White House Friday with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Bush urged Americans to share their confidence in a positive outcome to the war.

"The Iraqi people are growing in optimism and hope," Bush said.

"They understand that the violence is only a part of the reality in Iraq."

In the Democratic radio response, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, alleged that the war has been conducted with "tactical and strategic incompetence."

"Two years later, America finds itself more isolated than ever before, the object of unprecedented international mistrust," Brzezinski said.

"As a result, we are not as safe as we should be here at home."

He said the war has turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists and noted that Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, has not been captured.

"The violence in Iraq continues at increasing rates and American casualties continue to mount," Brzezinski said.

Bush's message that Iraqis are overcoming their fears and working to defeat those opposed to an Iraqi democracy is likely to be echoed in a prime-time address he'll make Tuesday from Fort Bragg, N.C.

The address at the home of the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division will mark the first anniversary of the transfer of power from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraq's interim government.

The president told radio listeners his strategy for military success is to defeat members of Saddam Hussein's former regime and foreign and Iraqi terrorists and criminals responsible for the violence.

At the same time, the United States is helping train Iraqi security forces so U.S. troops can eventually return home.

Bush again turned aside calls in Congress and elsewhere for him to set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops.

"The terrorists' objective is to break the will of America and of the Iraqi people before democracy can take root," Bush said.

"Two years ago, they tried to intimidate the Iraqi Governing Council -- and failed," he said.

"Last year, they tried to delay the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq -- and failed."

"This year, they tried to stop the free Iraqi elections -- and failed."

"Now the terrorists are trying to undermine the new government and intimidate Iraqis from joining the growing Iraqi security forces."

On the political front, Bush said the United States would continue helping Iraqis build a democracy.

He said al-Jaafari assured him the Iraqi government would meet its deadline to draft a new constitution.

By Aug. 15, Iraq's National Assembly is to unveil the draft of a constitution.

A ratification referendum would follow within two months.

If approved, the constitution will provide the basis for general elections by Dec. 15.

Trying to build public support and ally the concerns of Americans anxious for the war to end, Bush said, "Americans can be proud of all that we and our coalition partners have accomplished in Iraq."

"Our country has been tested before, and we have a long history of resolve and faith in the cause of freedom."

"Now we will see that cause to victory in Iraq."

Ongoing violence in Iraq has taken a political toll on Bush and has raised alarms in Congress.

Just over half of Americans now say the United States made a mistake going to war, and almost six in 10 say they don't approve of the way Bush has handled Iraq, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

Friday evening, al-Jaafari told questioners at the National Press Club that the violence would not deter establishment of an Iraqi democracy.

"The challenges are very, very real but also is the determination of the Iraqi people."

He thanked Americans for their support and sacrifices on Iraq's behalf.

While Bush says progress is being made, Brzezinski points to a Pentagon warning that the Army Reserve is turning into a "broken" force.

In January, the military services' own estimates indicated that at the pace of U.S. deployments to Iraq, the Pentagon would be hard pressed by next year to provide enough reserve combat troops.

Army Reserve chief Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly advised at the time that his citizen militia was "rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force."

"Patriotism and love of country does not demand endless sacrifice on the part of our troops in a war justified by slogans," Brzezinski said.

------

Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

Of course, being more familiar with the east coast REPUBLICAN HELL-HOLE of Rensselaer County in the corrupt EMPIRE State of New York, I do know the story of a New York State licensed professional engineer who got fired by Rensselaer county for sticking his nose into these kinds of dealings, and who was then run down on Liberty Lane in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, on December 29, 1989, by a hit-and-run driver, and who was then subsequently prosecuted by the Rensselaer County District Attorney for attacking the hit-and-run driver's brown Ford pick-up with his body .....

He was crazy, you see, a Viet Nam veteran, they say, and well, you know what that means, and it seems that this licensed professional engineer who was also a Viet Nam veteran flipped right out, and they do, you know, the engineers, I mean, and it seems that he ran down this poor sod's truck as the poor sod was racing down Liberty Lane, in a state of abject fear and TAY-RAH, trying to get away from this berserk engineer who was coming after him like a hurtling freight train, and the engineer actually out-distanced the speeding truck on foot, and he hurled his body at the truck in an effort to kill the poor sod driving it ....

Or at least that is what the New York State Police said in Poestenkill Town Court, to the REPUBLICAN who just happened to also be the judge there ......

While Mississippi has to relive the past, up here in the Town of Poestenkill in Rensselaer County in the corrupt EMPIRE State of New York, I am continually re-living the present, and outside of some details, there is not a lot of difference between the two .....

Down there they got, or had, the Ku Klux Klan as their "hate group", while up here, we got the "BID-NESSMAN'S PROTECTIVE" for ours.

Names are different but methods?

They don't change, when it comes to "hate groups", now do they?

Just different "target audiences" is all .....

"Killen trial forces Miss. to relive past"

By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS, Associated Press
Last updated: 2:25 p.m., Saturday, June 25, 2005

PHILADELPHIA, Miss. -- It's not the kind of thing folks talk about over sweaty glasses of sweet iced tea -- not in this polite little town of 7,300, where blacks and whites appear to live in harmony and strangers give each other friendly nods as they pass on the courthouse square.

But with the trial that led to the conviction of a one-time local Ku Klux Klan leader, the town has had to relive an era of beatings, church burnings and the killings of three civil-rights workers who were shot to death and buried in a red-clay dam.

The manslaughter verdicts against Edgar Ray Killen came on Tuesday, exactly 41 years after the killings of black Mississippian James Chaney and white New Yorkers Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner.

Testimony had started on June 16, 41 years after Klansmen torched a black church to lure Schwerner -- the bearded 24-year-old they called "Goatee" -- to Neshoba County.

And Killen was sentenced on Thursday, June 23, exactly 41 years after authorities found the burned-out hulk of the civil rights workers' car.

"There's some sort of cosmic justice working somewhere," said Stanley Dearman, who was editor of the local newspaper, the Neshoba Democrat, from 1966 to 2000.

He had long pushed for the case to be reopened.

Circuit Judge Marcus Gordon gave 80-year-old Killen, a sawmill operator and part-time Baptist minister, the maximum sentence of 60 years -- 20 for each of the three deaths.

The trial could be one of the last of its kind, where prosecutors -- primarily in the South -- have revived decades-old cases against people who killed in the name of preserving segregation, said University of Vermont political scientist Howard Ball, who attended most of the trial.

"You probably won't see too many trials of these people because they're dying off," said Ball, whose book about the 1964 slayings, "Murder in Mississippi," was published late last year.

He's working on another book about the case, dramatized in the 1988 movie "Mississippi Burning."

"The hope is that this is the last of these trials of the generation of unregenerate Klansman, and the hope for the future is that we've gone past this era of violence and brutality and that the state is moving toward a more positive environment for all people," Ball said.

The case has helped shine a spotlight on other unresolved civil rights-era cases, including the 1955 slaying of 14-year-old Emmett Till, who was kidnapped from his uncle's home in the Mississippi Delta after being accused of whistling at a white woman.

Three days later, his mutilated body was found in a river.

The investigation was reopened last year, and his remains were exhumed this month.

Black politicians in Georgia are also calling for prosecutors to bring charges for the first time in the unsolved 1946 lynchings of four black sharecroppers there.

Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., has called for the creation of a Justice Department unit focused on unsolved civil rights-era killings.

"This isn't symbolic," Talent said.

"This is the government trying to perform its law enforcement function."

Some in Philadelphia were left with a feeling of dissatisfaction that Killen was the only one convicted for a crime carried out by a mob.

"I hate he has to go down alone," said Nettie Cox, a member of the a local racial reconciliation group, the Philadelphia Coalition.

Patrick Smith, an executive committee member for a Georgia NAACP chapter, drove five hours from his home in Columbus, Ga., to watch the closing arguments in Killen's trial.

The slayings happened four years before Smith was born, but he said he was drawn to the trial by a sense of history instilled by his parents.

Smith said he still finds it sad that people of good conscience didn't stand up to Klansmen who committed violence against civil rights workers in the 1960s.

"I don't understand how complicit the good, Christian people can be when they do nothing or say nothing," Smith said.

P.J. Frederick came from her home in Hollidaysburg, Pa., for the trial with her cousin, Mary Ann Colledge of Baltimore.

Frederick, now 56, lived in this Mississippi town in 1976-77 as a worker for VISTA, Volunteers in Service to America, the domestic branch of the Peace Corps.

She taught reading and helped with black voter registration -- some of the same activities Schwerner and Chaney did and Goodman intended to do, had he lived more than a day after arriving in Mississippi.

"I'm surprised."

"I'm flabbergasted," Colledge said after the verdict.

"I just think justice was done."

"I think there's a little more light shining today and we're one step closer to the top of the mountain."

end quote

Up here, some day, we hope for the same outcome!

In the meantime, well, we just don't hold our breath!

[Livyjr]

"Bush trying to win over Americans on Iraq" 
 
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
Last updated: 1:56 p.m., Saturday, June 25, 2005

WASHINGTON -- As public support for his Iraq policy declines, President Bush is working to convince wary Americans that he has a military and political strategy for success in the war in which 1,730 U.S. troops have been killed.

In the Democratic radio response, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, alleged that the war has been conducted with "tactical and strategic incompetence."

"Two years later, America finds itself more isolated than ever before, the object of unprecedented international mistrust," Brzezinski said.

"As a result, we are not as safe as we should be here at home."

"Patriotism and love of country does not demand endless sacrifice on the part of our troops in a war justified by slogans," Brzezinski said.

"Newsview: Bush losing support for Iraq war"

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press
Last updated: 1:56 p.m., Saturday, June 25, 2005

WASHINGTON -- President Bush is casting about for ways to turn the tide of public opinion on Iraq.

He is running into a growing level of skepticism, new strains in Republican unity and more frequent comparisons to the Vietnam conflict of almost four decades ago.

A new stepped-up public relations effort has yet to show results.

The next event is a prime-time speech on Tuesday at Fort Bragg, N.C., with U.S. troops as his backdrop.

Bush administration officials see the speech as a chance for the president to clearly spell out his goals -- and the stakes -- of a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq.

But analysts suggest it will take more than a finely honed speech to revive flagging public support or to reverse an alarming slide in military recruitment.

"I don't think anybody will be able to watch that speech without wondering where is the banner saying `Mission Accomplished,'" said Anthony H. Cordesman, an Iraq expert and former Pentagon intelligence official.

A banner hung on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, where Bush, wearing a flight suit, proclaimed an end to major combat in Iraq in May 2003.

Rather than using those in the military as a prop, Bush should "sit down, present a substantive picture of what we are going to do in Iraq, and then have that backed up in detail by members of the Cabinet and by the senior military."

"Otherwise, the most you can do is to persuade the already converted," said Cordesman, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

At a White House meeting on Friday with Iraq's interim prime minister, Bush said he would not lay out a U.S. withdrawal strategy or bow to pressure from war critics.

"I'm not giving up on the mission," Bush said.

The president also used his weekend radio address for the second week in a row to try to rally support.

"Our nation's mission in Iraq is difficult, and we can expect more tough fighting in the weeks and months ahead."

"Yet I am confident in the outcome," he said.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, responded for the Democrats by saying, "We deserve a realistic definition of success for a war that increasingly threatens to become a quagmire."

He contended that for the first time in U.S. history, "America is conducting a war without any effort at bipartisan consultation on our tactics, on our strategy, and on our goals."

Some 53 percent of people surveyed say the United States made a mistake going to war in Iraq in March 2003, according to an AP-Ipsos poll released Friday.

That is the highest number in AP-Ipsos polling who have said the war was a mistake.

Soon after Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, was captured in December 2003, almost two-thirds of those questioned said the U.S. made the right decision in waging war.

Public support has dropped since then, occasionally spiking after positive news such as January's elections in Iraq.

The poll numbers are approaching the levels of public discontent registered in the final years of the Vietnam War.

The administration says Iraq has not become a Vietnam-like quagmire -- but that word is being used more frequently to describe the political situation facing Bush.

Pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, suggested that comparisons with Vietnam might be a little off the mark.

Some 55,000 Americans died in Vietnam, while 1,700 have been killed in Iraq.

"The important thing here is opinions are headed south on this because the public is reacting very negatively to this ongoing casualty count."

"The public is very aware of how many people have been lost," Kohut said.

"We see a growing number of people who say you have to get our troops out of there," Kohut said.

But, unlike Vietnam, "the bottom hasn't fallen out on support for the war yet."

That may be of little comfort to Bush.

In recent days, Democrats have stepped up their criticism.

Volleys also have come from Republicans who are troubled by what they see as the administration's failure to give an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq.

The unity on the war that Republicans exhibited during last year's election campaign is showing cracks.

Nobody in the party wanted to weaken Bush before the election.

But with the 2006 midterm congressional elections approaching, members are thinking about their own status as they field increasing complaints on Iraq from constituents.

A withdrawal resolution was introduced in the House with the support of conservative Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., previously a strong war supporter.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told a Senate hearing that public opinion in his military-oriented and conservative state was turning against the war and it could become "a chronic problem" for the administration.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., suggested the White House was "completely disconnected from reality" in claiming the war was being won.

------

EDITOR'S NOTE -- Tom Raum has covered Washington for The Associated Press since 1973, including five presidencies.

end quotes

Why do people expect truth OUT OF George W. Bush when it does not seem that there was ever any IN THERE in the first place?

[Livyjr]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/feat...ts.html#a003103

06.23.2005 Kristen Breitweiser

Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11"

Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important?

Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages.

Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive.”

Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance.

We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run,” and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about".

Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run.

He looked tan, rested, and calm.

He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.

Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations.

"Musharraf: Bin Laden whereabouts unknown"

By MUNIR AHMAD, Associated Press
Last updated: 9:45 a.m., Saturday, June 25, 2005

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan's president said Saturday there were no authentic reports on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, and anyone who believed the al-Qaida chief was in his country should give his location.

The comments by Gen. Pervez Musharraf came more than a week after U.S. Ambassador for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad claimed that bin Laden and fugitive Taliban chief Mullah Mohammed Omar were not believed to be in Afghanistan.

Khalilzad did not say where the two were believed to be hiding.

"There are a lot of people who say that Osama bin Laden is here in Pakistan," Musharraf told reporters in Islamabad before leaving for an official visit to Saudi Arabia.

"Please come and show us where he is or tell us where he is."

"We will act on such information."

"He (bin Laden) could be anywhere."

Pakistan is a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.

Musharraf said Pakistan was working closely with Afghanistan in that effort, taking steps to secure its border to prevent militants from crossing between the two countries.

"There is a total and complete understanding between us," he said of Pakistan's relations with Kabul.

Musharraf -- who abandoned support of Afghanistan's former Taliban regime after the Sept. 11 attacks -- spoke with Afghan President Hamid Karzai twice this week.

Musharraf would only say that "a small difference of opinion was discussed and resolved."

Last week, Karzai spokesman Jawed Ludin said Islamabad was not doing enough to fight the militants, adding that there would never be peace in Afghanistan until the two nations "join hands together to fight terrorism."

[Livyjr]

"Newsview: Bush losing support for Iraq war" 
 
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press
Last updated: 1:56 p.m., Saturday, June 25, 2005

WASHINGTON -- President Bush is casting about for ways to turn the tide of public opinion on Iraq.

He is running into a growing level of skepticism, new strains in Republican unity and more frequent comparisons to the Vietnam conflict of almost four decades ago.

A new stepped-up public relations effort has yet to show results.

Washington Gazette

FAIR AND BALANCED SPIN INSIDE THE BELTWAY

"Bush Twins Vow Support Of Military Recruitment Goals"

By John F. Youmans

As the Bush twins don their new camouflaged military uniforms, they have declared they will do everything possible to assist military recruiters reach their plummeting recruitment goals.

"It's the least we can do," one of the twins said.

"We believe in Shared Sacrifice."

"It is the responsibility of everyone to support this war to defend our country from terrorists."

When asked if they would be going to Iraq, both twins shrieked, "Lord no!"

"We haven't signed up."

"We are going to help others who are less fortunate to sign up."

Other Bush family members are assisting.

"Uncle Jeb's son George looks great in desert camouflage and he's helping," the twins said.

"Noelle said the Army has lowered their drug abuse standards and she is helping them pass the drug tests."

"I'll ask Dad how that works."

The twins said they would begin their campaign at the Franklin County Army Recruiting station a few blocks from the White House.

"We went the other day, but we didn't see anyone we knew."

"It was scary!" they said.

"But we will go to as many poor communities as we can this summer."

"We know these poor unemployed people need a job and they can even earn money for a decent education."

The Young Republicans meet for their national convention July 6-10 at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.

Thousands of young war supporters will be present.

What an excellent opportunity to pick up some additional military recruits.

Young Republicans are being urged to "Be a man and join up."

However, a group representative refused to participate in recruitment goals.

“That’s got a negative tone,” the spokesman said.

With this effort by the Bush twins, Army recruiting goals are sure to surge soon.

“We will even pick up volunteers in our limo, complete with Secret Service agents, to transport volunteers to the recruiting stations,” the twins promised.

[jeffmoskin]

Pakistan's president said Saturday there were no authentic reports on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, and anyone who believed the al-Qaida chief was in his country should give his location

You could make the argument that he should remain at-large:

To wit:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1431539,00.html


January 09, 2005

Let Bin Laden stay free, says CIA man
Tony Allen-Mills

THE world may be better off if Osama Bin Laden remains at large, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s recently departed executive director.

If the world’s most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB “Buzzy” Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA’s third most senior executive.

“You can make the argument that we’re better off with him (at large),” Krongard said. “Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.”

Krongard, a former investment banker who joined the CIA in 1998, said Bin Laden’s role among Islamic militants was changing.

“He’s turning into more of a charismatic leader than a terrorist mastermind,” he said. “Some of his lieutenants are the ones to worry about.”

Krongard, 68, said he viewed Bin Laden “not as a chief executive but more like a venture capitalist”.

He added: “Let’s say you and I want to blow up Trafalgar Square. So we go to Bin Laden. And he’ll say, ‘Well, here’s some money and some passports and if you need weapons, see this guy’.

“I don’t see him keeping his fingers on everything because the lines of communications are just too difficult.”

Several US officials have privately admitted that it may be better to keep Bin Laden pinned down on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than make him a martyr or put him on trial. But Krongard is the most senior figure to acknowledge publicly that his capture might prove counter-productive.

Krongard also acknowledged that the CIA was still having trouble planting spies in Islamic militant ranks. “There are hundreds and hundreds of (Al-Qaeda) cells — it’s like a living, moving bit of protoplasm,” he said.

“In order to penetrate you not only have to be language-proficient, you also have to commit acts that exceed criminality. It’s very hard.”

His comments came as it emerged that new laws to combat the Al-Qaeda threat in Britain and keep the Belmarsh terror suspects in jail will be unveiled next month.

The draft terrorism bill will propose that “acts preparatory to terrorism” become a criminal offence to catch those who provide accommodation, finance, identity papers and other support. The bill will prove controversial because it could be applied restrospectively against many of the 11 foreign terror suspects being detained in Belmarsh, south London, and Broadmoor secure hospital.

Charles Clarke, the home secretary, is also planning to announce a civil punishment for those suspected of “associating” with terrorist suspects, but where there is insufficient proof to press charges.

Additional reporting: David Leppard

[Livyjr]

"New York governor fears anti-globalization crusaders gaining ground"

Wednesday June 01, 2005

By PHIL COUVRETTE

Associated Press Writer

MONTREAL (AP) New York Gov. George Pataki warned Wednesday that anti-globalization efforts were gaining ground, citing the stunning rejection of the EU constitution by the French and Dutch and the reluctance of many in the U.S. Congress to approve a free-trade pact with Central America.

"There is a growing sentiment against the free market, open economies and more globalization of the world's economy,'' Pataki said in a speech at the International Economic Forum of the Americas.

Pataki also said he was doubtful that Congress would approve the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.

"I'm not sure he'll get it through Congress,'' Pataki said of President Bush, "because there are those who are saying we have to protect the industries that are here as opposed to opening up markets both ways."

"I think that is completely wrong.''

Many Democrats complain the agreement lacks labor and environmental protections to stop abuses of workers in poor, low-wage Central America.

January 09, 2005

The draft terrorism bill will propose that “acts preparatory to terrorism” become a criminal offence to catch those who provide accommodation, finance, identity papers and other support.

The bill will prove controversial because it could be applied restrospectively against many of the 11 foreign terror suspects being detained in Belmarsh, south London, and Broadmoor secure hospital.

Charles Clarke, the home secretary, is also planning to announce a civil punishment for those suspected of “associating” with terrorist suspects, but where there is insufficient proof to press charges.

Well, jeffmoskin, as always, you keep the discussion alive and interesting in here, at least to me, anyway, because your posts from the "left coast" often serve as a counterpoint to what I am seeing here on the "EXTREME RIGHT COAST", especially with regard to this BID-NESS of TAY-RIZM, which seems to be anything that those in power want it to be!

SO!

Now, we're getting over into a class of people who are merely "suspected" of "associating" with terrorist suspects!

SO?

What exactly is a "terrorist suspect"?

And how exactly do you "associate" with one?

Come into an internet forum like this one, and converse with someone like yourself about just what in the Hell is going on in this world of OURS, when people like Pataki seem to be usurping that which is an exclusive power of OUR Congress, according to section 8 of Article I of OUR United States Constitution, to wit:

The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes?

Or Mr. A.B., maybe, because he is of middle-eastern descent?

Let's go back to this article that I posted some time ago, and take a peek:

"CIA Overseeing 3-Day War Game on Internet"

May 25, 2005

By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer

WASHINGTON — The CIA is conducting a war game this week to simulate an unprecedented, Sept. 11-like electronic assault against the United States.

The three-day exercise, known as "Silent Horizon," is meant to test the ability of government and industry to respond to escalating Internet disruptions over many months, according to participants.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because the CIA asked them not to disclose details of the sensitive exercise taking place in Charlottesville, Va., about two hours southwest of Washington.

The simulated attacks were carried out five years in the future by a fictional new alliance of anti-American organizations that included anti-globalization hackers.

end quotes

"Anti-American organizations" that included "anti-globalization hackers"!

There it is, kind of right out there in plain sight, and so, it is just not seen, or noticed!

Then go up to the top of this post, where it says:

"New York governor fears anti-globalization crusaders gaining ground"

Anti-globalization crusaders?

What, exactly, is an "anti-globalization crusader", pray tell?

A terror suspect?

"There is a growing sentiment against the free market, open economies and more globalization of the world's economy,'' Pataki said in a speech at the International Economic Forum of the Americas.

MORE GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD'S ECONOMY?

Does the world have an economy?

And by asking that simple question, am I now suspected of being a "TAY-RIST"?

I'll tell you what, jeffmoskin, being a resident of New York State, where Pataki is the KING, and a dangerous one, in my estimation, because he knows no limitations on HIS POWER, I would say that answer is yes, and I'll tell you further, that this is very troubling to me, personally, indeed, because of my own experiences here in the State of New York with this concept of GLOBALIZATION of the WORLD'S ECONOMY, and what that really translates into!

And here is a touch of it, in this following:

Pataki also said he was doubtful that Congress would approve the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.

"I'm not sure he'll get it through Congress,'' Pataki said of President Bush, "because there are those who are saying we have to protect the industries that are here as opposed to opening up markets both ways."

"I think that is completely wrong.''

Many Democrats complain the agreement lacks labor and environmental protections to stop abuses of workers in poor, low-wage Central America.

There, jeffmoskin, is GLOBALIZATION of the WORLD'S ECONOMY!

It is called exploitation, of course, by some, and so, by saying that, of course, I have just dug my own grave a few feet deeper, because now, I am questioning GLOBALIZATION of the WORLD'S ECONOMY!

SLAVES and MASTER!

Many of the former, and a handful of the latter!

Hhhhmmmm!

SO?

You are now a suspect, too, jeffmoskin, and that is how it starts ....

[jeffmoskin]

You are now a suspect, too, jeffmoskin, and that is how it starts ....

In Bushworld, we are ALL suspects.

Until proven not guilty.

[Livyjr]

In Bushworld, we are ALL suspects.

Until proven not guilty.

And I do not know about you, jeffmoskin, but in my old age, and in my condition as a disabled veteran, I will never have a "BAG OF GOLD" big enough to have myself proven "not guilty" of something, or anything, and so .....

Over in my JUDICIAL thread, where I just was, I posted this morning Clarence Thomas' dissent in that case from New London, Connecticut where the City of New London has decided to take the houses of some people over there so that the Pfizer Corporation can allegedly be "benefitted", and last night, I had a talk with a younger person about the implications of that decision, right here where I am, since I am a person with absolutely no political clout whatsoever in my town, my county, and my state, who "owns" land that is coveted by others with power in my town, and I am now living in fear of my land being taken from me, by force, with the result that I will be displaced and destitute, as a result, and without any recourse, whatsoever, to do a thing about that, which is what Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas are now warning about, in their dissents.

When I returned to this country from Viet Nam in 1970, it was as a younger person with rocket fragments lodged near my spine as a result of a rocket grenade exploding directly behind me, and so, I knew that my "career choices" were limited by that, as a result.

I also returned with a "gut-full" of the violence, and chaos of that place, and the exploitation of those without "power" to defend themselves from having their homes burned down, by us, their possessions taken, by us, by force, their women violated, by us, for pleasure, and ultimately, their lives taken, by us, for sport, or pleasure, or for no reason at all, other than that they were there, and our fingers just had an uncontrollable urge to twitch on the trigger, right when our cross-hairs were arrayed on their heads!

Sick beyond words was I at this, and so, when I got back, I "applied" myself to what I thought was a path of where the "strong" would actually "protect" the "weak", as opposed to the Viet Nam scenario, where the strong preyed on the weak, because they could.

In the course of all of that, I received a Master's Degree in Engineering, at government expense, so as to, in the language of my own particular "grant", better myself for the task at hand.

Beyond that, I then became licensed in the State of New York as an engineer, for the purpose, as stated in the state law creating such licenses, to "protect and safguard life, health and property."

To practice in this capacity, I was to practice in "SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE" with ALL federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations governing such practice!

In my case, as a public health engineer, that meant substantial compliance with the provisions of section 603 of the New York State Public Health Law, that:

"In order to be eligible for state aid under this title, each municipality shall administer its public health programs in accordance with its approved municipal public health services plan and standards of performance established by the commissioner through rules and regulations and shall, in particular, ensure that public health services are provided in an efficient and effective manner to all persons in the municipality."

end quotes

Now, there is an assumption at law, and here, let the lawyers out there scream and holler that I am "practicing law", in here, THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT when something requires a person with a certain degree of education, experience and integrity, and a license, TO DISPATCH A DUTY ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC GOOD, that that person has an obligation to KNOW the law, and to then, follow it, which was so, in my capacity as a public health engineer in the State of New York!

EXCEPT ...

For me to, in particular, ensure that public health services were provided in "an efficient and effective manner TO ALL PERSONS in the municipality", it was necessary for me to apply the law in such a fashion SO AS TO ALSO LIMIT THE POWER of some in the municipality, the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York, to exploit those weaker than themselves, without money or power, as I am, and the rest is now history .....

Which is one of the reasons that I have this thread, and others going in here, as a reaction to all of what happened in the State of New York when I tried to simply abide by words written on a piece of paper called LAW!

Out of all of this, I have come to observe many things that I would call INJUSTICE, and over the last thirty years, or so, I have really had to wrestle with this concept of why "GOOD" is so weak and puny in the face of "EVIL", down here on this earth of OURS!

And I still have no answer, other than that it just appears that it is!

Remember all that "God is dead" stuff, from what, back in the 1970's, I think it was?

Or was that only a regional thing, or maybe a local thing, even?

If one lives long enough, and sees whatever, as I did, it sure is easier to believe that God is dead, than anything else, and so, the only question is who killed him, and what that may mean for those of us who thought that God was greater than the evil that he must have invented, when he invented mankind, and then, put the worst of them down here on this earth of OURS to rule over us, and exploit us, as was the case in Viet Nam, then, and Rensselaer County, today!

[jeffmoskin]

1. Did you EVER think that the day would come when you would find yourself AGREEING with CLARENCE THOMAS???

Or Sandra Day O'Connor???

I certainly never did. But I am, in fact, agreeing.

2. God may or may not be dead. That is not for me to know. But I do know that GREED is alive and well. We used to have ways of keeping it under control. But, led by people like Michael Eisner, Corporate America is now doing to us what we were doing to the Vietnamese.

Because they CAN.

[Livyjr]

Did you EVER think that the day would come when you would find yourself AGREEING with CLARENCE THOMAS???

Or Sandra Day O'Connor???

I certainly never did.

But I am, in fact, agreeing.

You know, jeffmoskin, I guess I never really thought about either of them, one way or the other, but now?

Right now, they appear to be all that stands between us and the out-and-out tyranny of a small but powerful minority, here in OUR America, and they, Justices O'Connor and Thomas, are losing the battle!

I find this whole business with this land-taking to be the most incredible thing that I have heard of, here in OUR America, in my life!

In almost sixty years, this is the most incredible piece of news that I have ever heard, and of all things that threaten peace and security, here in OUR America, this decision would be at the head of the list!

Justice Thomas called this decision "PERVERSE", and being at a loss for another word to replace that one, I find that I have to agree with him on that subject!

At the time of Independence from England, it was said that only one type or class of persons had no security with respect to property, and that was the class of slaves!

IT STILL IS, AND NOW, THAT IS US!

And for those who wonder at the JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY of such as George W. Bush and George Pataki, this Supreme Court decision makes it manifestly clear!

There is a race born to be masters, which is them, and then, there is everyone else, and we do not have names, only item numbers stamped on OUR foreheads!

And as for God, and who might have killed him ......

[Livyjr]

SUSETTE KELO, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut

[June 23, 2005]

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that "the law of the land ... postpone[s] even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property." Commentaries on the Laws of England 134-135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone).

The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use." Amdt. 5.

Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a " '[P]ublic [P]urpose' " Clause, ante, at 9-10 (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society" Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational," ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted).

This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use."

I cannot agree.

If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O'Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1-2, 8-13.

I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion.

Regrettably, however, the Court's error runs deeper than this.

The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause IS THEREFORE DEEPLY PERVERSE.

It encourages "those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms" to victimize the weak. Ante, at 11 (O'Connor, J., dissenting).

Those incentives have made the legacy of this Court's "public purpose" test an unhappy one.

In the 1950's, no doubt emboldened in part by the expansive understanding of "public use" this Court adopted in Berman, cities "rushed to draw plans" for downtown development. B. Frieden & L. Sagalayn, Downtown, Inc. How America Rebuilds Cities 17 (1989).

"Of all the families displaced by urban renewal from 1949 through 1963, 63 percent of those whose race was known were nonwhite, and of these families, 56 percent of nonwhites and 38 percent of whites had incomes low enough to qualify for public housing, which, however, was seldom available to them." Id., at 28.

Public works projects in the 1950's and 1960's destroyed predominantly minority communities in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Baltimore, Maryland. Id., at 28-29.

In 1981, urban planners in Detroit, Michigan, uprooted the largely "lower-income and elderly" Poletown neighborhood for the benefit of the General Motors Corporation. J. Wylie, Poletown: Community Betrayed 58 (1989).

Urban renewal projects have long been associated with the displacement of blacks; "in cities across the country, urban renewal came to be known as 'Negro removal.' " Pritchett, The "Public Menace" of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain, 21 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 1, 47 (2003).

Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the "slum-clearance" project upheld by this Court in Berman were black. 348 U. S., at 30.

Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects.

***

The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12.

When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning.

For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor.

I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

[Livyjr]

"Italy judge orders arrest of 13 CIA agents" 
 
By AIDAN LEWIS, Associated Press
Last updated: 4:26 p.m., Friday, June 24, 2005

ROME -- An Italian judge on Friday ordered the arrests of 13 CIA officers for secretly transporting a Muslim preacher from Italy to Egypt as part of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts -- a rare public objection to the practice by a close American ally.

The Egyptian was spirited away in 2003, purportedly as part of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program in which terror suspects are transferred to third countries without court approval, subjecting them to possible torture.

Corriere said Italian police picked up details, including cover names, photos, credit card information and U.S. addresses the agents gave to five-star hotels in Milan around the time of Nasr's alleged abduction.

The report said investigations showed the agents incurred $144,984 in hotel bills in Milan, and that two pairs of agents took holidays in northern Italy after delivering Nasr to Aviano.

$144,984 in hotel bills at FIVE STAR hotels!

Hhhhmmm!

REPUBLICAN leadership?

How about thievery, instead, along with a continuing daily dose of pure BULL ****!

"Tables turned on CIA squad - Court papers offer glimpse of lavish life lived by agency operatives whose alleged kidnapping of a radical cleric led Italian court to seek their arrest"

By TRACY WILKINSON, Los Angeles Times
First published: Sunday, June 26, 2005

MILAN, Italy -- They ran up tabs of thousands of dollars at some of Milan's best hotels and restaurants.

They chatted easily on their cellphones and gave out passport, frequent flier and drivers license numbers when booking flights or renting cars.

And now they are fugitives.

If Italian authorities are right, a CIA operation has been exposed here that on some levels was brazen and perhaps reckless, even as it successfully spirited away a reputedly notorious Egyptian imam.

Italian arrest orders have been issued for 13 CIA operatives, and additional warrants are possible, in what might be the first time an ally of Washington, D.C., has attempted to prosecute its spies.

The suspects face kidnapping charges that carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

Judicial authorities said Saturday they also might seek the arrest of a senior U.S. Air Force commander who they say allowed the U.S.-run Aviano air base in northern Italy to be used in the abduction of Hassan Osama Nasr, a radical cleric better known as Abu Omar.

Italian authorities contend Abu Omar was kidnapped by the American agents two and a half years ago and taken to Egypt, where he has said he was tortured.

His whereabouts remain unknown.

Abu Omar had been long suspected of terrorist activities by Italian authorities, who had him under surveillance themselves as part of an investigation into an Islamic cell accused of recruiting and sending suicide bombers and fighters to Iraq.

The alleged former CIA station chief in Milan, a 51-year-old Honduran-born American who is among those named in the arrest warrants, is believed to have accompanied or followed Abu Omar to Egypt and to have been present for some of the interrogations, a senior Italian judicial official said Saturday.

That raises the possibility that the American agent was aware of the alleged torture, the Italian official said.

The man's movements were tracked by his use of a cellphone to make calls from Egypt in the two weeks after the disappearance of Abu Omar, the official said.

"He was the one who knew everything about Abu Omar," the official said, referring to the ex-station chief, "and so he would have been very useful in the interrogation."

Abu Omar, during a brief period of freedom in 2004, told associates he was tortured with electrical shocks to his genitals and beatings during the interrogations in Egypt.

The former station chief apparently planned on retiring in Italy and had bought a home near Turin.

Although he has been absent from Italy for several months, officials say, his wife had remained in the home, which Italian police raided Thursday night, confiscating a computer, computer disks and papers.

That he thought he could live out his golden years in Italy is another indication of the impunity with which he and the other alleged agents felt they were operating, Italian prosecutors say.

It remains unclear whether the pro-U.S. government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi signed off on the Milan abduction.

Several former U.S. intelligence officials consulted said it was virtually impossible the operation would have been launched without Italian permission at some level.

All told, 19 American operatives -- 13 men and six women -- mounted the mission to capture Abu Omar, according to the warrants and other court documents reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, as well as interviews with several Italian officials involved in the case.

The abduction was an example of the United States' "extraordinary rendition" program, a highly controversial tactic used with increasing frequency since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States to pursue alleged terrorists.

Dozens of people have been seized by CIA operatives in foreign lands and bundled off to third-world countries, according to intelligence officials and human rights organizations.

The Milan crew seemed to have made little effort to keep a low profile.

Although much of the information they provided might have been false, they seemed to have left a trail worthy of Hansel and Gretel.

Arriving individually or in pairs during the weeks leading up to the abduction in February 2003, they checked into some of Milan's finest hotels: the $450-a-night Prince of Savoy on Milan's grand Piazza della Repubblica, the Westin Palace, the Milan Hilton.

They ate at good restaurants and rented cellphones and cars.

They offered up their frequent-flier account numbers, as well as their passports, credit cards and drivers licenses.

Many of the names, home U.S. addresses and telephone numbers contained in the indictment appear to be false.

In hotel bills alone, the group ran up a tab of $150,000, the documents indicate.

The team divided up, with six of the agents conducting reconnaissance and others intercepting Abu Omar as he walked from his Milan home to a mosque.

They loaded him into a truck and sped off to the Aviano base, about four hours away, Italian prosecutors allege.

As they traveled, one of the agents used a cellphone to call a commander at the Aviano base every half hour or so, as though to alert him to their progress, Italian prosecutors said.

That senior officer, Col. Joseph Romano, has since left Italy, but prosecutors said Saturday they want to question him and are considering ordering his arrest.

"We suspect he knew what the CIA agents were doing," a senior Italian official said.

Once the rendition was completed, several of the agents traveled to Venice for a celebration, also at a luxurious five-star hotel, the court papers say.

Four others took a vacation along the Mediterranean coast.

Italian judicial officials are perhaps most angry with the American operation because it ruined their own efforts to crack the cell and arrest numerous terror suspects in Italy.

Prosecutor Armando Spataro is seeking the extradition of the suspects, and the warrants have been forwarded to European police agencies, meaning the named men and women could be arrested anywhere in Europe.

But Italian judicial officials acknowledge it is unlikely a single CIA agent ever will be brought to trial.

The U.S. government has refused to comment on or even acknowledge the warrants publicly.

[Livyjr]

Like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove also was too good to ever wear a uniform, and of course, that is probably a blessing to all those who never had to serve with him, as a result!

And like Dick Cheney, now, of course, Karl Rove is an expert on military matters, despite the fact that he knows nothing at all about them, other than what he hears others talking about, and if Karl Rove had less of an ego, what he might have understood is that IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR ENEMY, YOUR ENEMY CONTROLS YOU, THROUGH YOUR IGNORANCE OF HIM.

You win because you do know your enemy, and so, you do not let him use either his strength, or his weakness against you, to his advantage, but that is intellectual, and there is where Karl Rove and that crowd of his are just plumb lost, because they have contempt for intellect, and so, they are just plain STUPID, instead, and right proud of it, too, they are!

"Rove Taking a More Public Role - Bush Adviser Playing Messenger for Second-Term Agenda"

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 26, 2005; Page A01

He has risen to the highest ranks of the White House, carries the title of deputy chief of staff and presides over a broad portfolio of domestic and foreign issues.

But even as he has morphed from political operative to policy adviser, Karl Rove retains the instincts of the direct-mail specialist he once was in Texas.

The verbal strike he aimed at liberals and liberalism during a speech to the New York Conservative Party on Wednesday night came straight out of the direct-mail manual: pithy, provocative and designed to energize one side by torching the other.

Rove's flamboyant remarks -- in which he roused conservatives by saying liberals prefer "therapy and understanding" for terrorists instead of retaliation -- has put President Bush's top strategist back on stage.

It's a place where he has seemed increasingly comfortable of late.

Through much of last year, by contrast, Rove remained largely in the shadows, avoiding on-the-record interviews or television appearances and the controversy that inevitably would have followed.

A political lightning rod, whom Democrats accused of unfairly injecting the war on terrorism into the 2002 midterm elections, Rove let others in the campaign attack the Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), and explain Bush's strategy to the outside world.

But the president's reelection victory liberated Rove and marked the beginning of a new chapter in his career.

On the afternoon after the election, Bush paid tribute to the outsize role his longtime adviser and friend of 30 years had played, publicly identifying him as the "architect" of a victory that came only after one of the most hard-fought campaigns in modern presidential politics -- a victory even some White House officials doubted would happen, given problems in Iraq and public concerns about the economy.

Rove was rewarded with a new title (while retaining the "senior adviser" designation he carried from the first term) and the first-floor West Wing office down the hall from the Oval Office that other deputy chiefs of staff have used.

Long a policy wonk in a political operative's skin, Rove always had significant involvement in issues during the first Bush term.

Now, that role has been made formal, with expanded administrative powers and the explicit authority to range widely into a variety of policy areas.

His colleagues see him as one of the administration's most potent public advocates on behalf of Bush's major initiatives.

"Karl is a key asset to this White House," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said in an e-mail message.

"His keen insight into the president's thinking, grasp of a wide range of complex issues and ability to speak beyond the Washington Beltway, make Karl a valuable messenger for the president's second-term agenda."

In his new role, Rove has become more visible and somewhat more accessible.

He has made himself available to White House reporters and has appeared more frequently on television.

When he went to the New York Times for an interview earlier this year, he showed up with flowers for columnist Maureen Dowd, part of a running inside joke with one of Bush's most acerbic critics.

Rove speaks on behalf of the president not just on the politics of the moment but also on the administration's policy agenda.

He has been at the center of the administration's efforts to restructure Social Security, and he will be deeply involved in the battle to confirm a new Supreme Court justice if there is a vacancy soon, as is widely expected.

Having done what few political strategists have done -- oversee two successful campaigns for the White House -- Rove has become a bona fide celebrity within the Republican Party and one of the most sought-after speakers by GOP audiences.

A White House official said Rove now can attract about as much money for a candidate or the party as Vice President Cheney, behind only the president -- an unprecedented capability for a White House staff hand.

A more public role has hardly dulled Rove's combative edge.

From the first days of Bush's presidential campaign in 1999 to the present, he has picked the fights and shaped the arguments used to advance his boss's agenda or political ambitions.

It was Rove who shared with Bush the passion to promote personal or private accounts as part of Social Security restructuring, a battle that has proved more difficult than many White House officials envisioned.

It was also Rove who helped shape the strategy of renominating a series of appellate court judges blocked by Democrats during Bush's first term.

Within the White House, Rove is regarded as a happy warrior, well-liked by colleagues for his humor and ebullient personality.

To the opposition, however, Rove's remarks to the New York state Conservative Party last week were simply fresh evidence of why they loathe him.

Congressional Democrats, most of whom supported Bush after Sept. 11, 2001, denounced the speech as deceitful and typical of the low-blow tactics they say have marked Rove's career.

What is still unclear is how deliberate Rove was being in prompting an uproar with his comments.

With public opinion on Iraq at an ebb and the president preparing to deliver a major speech Tuesday on the subject, Rove's remarks seemed in part an effort to redraw lines to how they were in last year's presidential campaign.

Bush succeeded then by casting himself as the embodiment of strength and resolve, and portraying Kerry as the symbol of weakness and vacillation.

Rove's speech -- a broader meditation on the rise of conservatism and the decline of liberalism -- is one that often animates his public remarks, White House officials noted, and is a topic he has both studied and tried to influence throughout his long career in politics.

But this was the first time his inflammatory language about liberals and Sept. 11 drew such wide notice.

The White House reaction to the uproar also bore the indelible stamp of Rove: no apologies and no retractions, and all engines in the GOP spin machine churning in concert.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Bartlett defended Rove from the briefing room and on several morning television programs, and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman jumped in with customary aggressiveness.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), in a bit of a role reversal, came to the defense of Rove by repeating some of the most provocative lines to College Republicans and saying, "That's not slander."

"That's the truth."

The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out an e-mail fundraising appeal proclaiming "Karl Rove Is Right."

GOP officials said Rove had criticized liberals, not Democrats or the Democratic Party, a distinction that many Democrats found unpersuasive.

Kerry stoked his e-mail supporters, asking them to sign a letter to Bush asking him to "thoroughly reject Karl Rove's purposeful attack on the patriotism of those who dare ask the tough questions that best protect American troops."

While many Democrats reacted with rage when they first heard about Rove's remarks, they were more mixed in their view of whether he had made the mistake of going too far or had cleverly baited a trap for them by opening up an argument on political turf that long has favored the Republicans.

"I don't think anybody knows yet [whether] what he said the other night is a mistake," said Tad Devine, who was a top strategist in Kerry's campaign.

"I will say it is calculated and deliberate."

"Karl for a long time has tried to position the Democrats as liberals, and liberals as weak, who don't want to defend America."