Life in OUR America, Volume 5, the Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

"Senator Challenges Ports Deal Procedure"

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee angrily accused the Bush administration Thursday of ignoring the law by refusing to extend an investigation of a United Arab Emirates company's takeover of significant U.S. port operations.

Bush, talking to reporters at the conclusion of a Cabinet meeting earlier Thursday, said that "people don't need to worry about security."

"The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government,"Bush said ...

"The more they'll be comforted that our ports will be secure."

I think I am finally beginning to understand exactly who George W. Bush is referring to when he says "his government" ......

Meaning the government that he personally answers to .....

Which is not OUR government at all ......

Back in the sixties, we had talk of the "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE" .....

And now ...

We have ...

"THE ARABIAN CANDIDATE" .....

As president of OUR America .....

These Arab OIL HIGH-ROLLERS come to Saratoga in the State of New York each year to spend big money on race horses at the annual sale up there .....

And maybe they take home some American politicians too .....

Stuck to their wallets like leeches ....

Almost impossible to remove .....

"Adviser says White House set on ports deal"

By DONNA DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:36 p.m., Friday, February 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration said Friday it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates company to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports.

The former head of the Sept. 11 commission said the deal "never should have happened."

Opponents, including the agency that runs New York and New Jersey ports, took their case to court, while the company, Dubai Ports World, stepped up efforts to change the minds of congressional critics.

The president's national security adviser said the White House would keep trying to persuade lawmakers -- there's more time since the company offered to delay its takeover -- but the administration wouldn't reconsider its approval.

"There are questions raised in the Congress, and what this delay allows is for those questions to be addressed on the Hill," Stephen Hadley said.

"There's nothing to reopen."

Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the bipartisan probe of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the deal was a big mistake because of past connections between the 2001 hijackers and the UAE.

"It shouldn't have happened, it never should have happened," Kean said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

The quicker the Bush administration can get out of the deal, the better, he said.

"There's no question that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money was laundered through there," Kean said.

Kean acknowledged the UAE is now being helpful by allowing the United States to dock ships in its country's waters, and helping the U.S. with intelligence.

"From our point of view, we don't want foreigners controlling our ports," Kean said.

"From their point of view, this is a legitimate company that had a legitimate bid and won, and here are all these congressmen saying all these things about not wanting this company."

"It looks to them like it's anti-Arab."

"I think this deal is going to be killed," Kean said.

"The question is how much damage is this going to do to us before it's killed."

Kean's comments threatened to overshadow moves by the company and the White House to appease critics by delaying the takeover.

"Governor Kean knows as much as anyone how risky it is to deal with the United Arab Emirates," said Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a leading opponent.

"This just proves that no real investigation was ever conducted, and it's unfortunate that he and the other 9/11 commissioners were not contacted before the government approved this."

The former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit joined in the criticism.

"The fact that you are putting a company in place that could already be infiltrated by al-Qaida is a silly thing to do," said Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit until 1999.

The U.S. operations generating the protests represent about 10 percent of a global $6.8 billion acquisition by the state-run company.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have denounced the Bush administration for approving the deal through a secretive review process designed to protect national security in big corporate mergers.

Lawmakers led by King and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., plan to introduce legislation next week that would put the deal on hold while the government conducts further investigation.

Hoping to forestall such legislation, Dubai Ports said Thursday night it would postpone its action indefinitely to give Congress more time to look at the deal.

Said Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan:

"We believe once Congress has a better understanding of the facts and the safeguards that are in place that they will be more comfortable with the transaction moving forward."

"So, a slight delay would be helpful in that regard."

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said much of the criticism has an anti-Arab bias.

"We are at war against terrorists, not any religion or ethnicity."

"Some politicians seem to have forgotten that."

"... Such alarm, verging almost on hysteria, harms our efforts to have the broadest coalition possible against worldwide terrorism," Domenici said.

House GOP leaders plan to meet Tuesday to decide whether they will still support immediate legislation to hold up the sale.

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, a member of the leadership, said he is "beginning to get what I want, which is to slow down this process so we can take a look at it."

Lobbyists for Dubai Ports went to Capitol Hill Friday to brief staffers.

Lawmakers said the company's delay was a positive step, but not a solution.

"I think the onus still remains with the company and for those who approved it, to justify how this is consistent with our national security concerns," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y.

In New Jersey, the agency in charge of area ports sued to try to block Dubai Ports from taking over operations there.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey argued in court papers that Dubai Ports World was violating its lease by not getting consent for its pending acquisition of the current port operator, London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, who is also suing over the sale, urged other governors to join the case.

Governors of Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania have expressed concerns about the takeover;

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has said he trusts his brother the president on such security issues.

------

Associated Press writers Katherine Shrader, Ted Bridis, Liz Sidoti, and Devlin Barrett in Washington, and Jeffrey Gold in Trenton, N.J. contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

I think I am finally beginning to understand exactly who George W. Bush is referring to when he says "HIS GOVERNMENT" ......

Meaning the government that he personally answers to .....

Which is not OUR government at all ......

Back in the sixties, we had talk of the "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE" .....

And now ...

We have ...

"THE ARABIAN CANDIDATE" .....

As president of OUR America .....

"Adviser says White House set on ports deal" 
 
By DONNA DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:36 p.m., Friday, February 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration said Friday it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates company to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has said he trusts his brother the president on such security issues.

"Clueless on ports - The White House says President Bush didn't know of the deal until recently"

Albany, New York Times Union Editorial
First published: Friday, February 24, 2006

The White House now acknowledges that President Bush wasn't aware that an Arab company was taking over operations at six American ports until last weekend.

That's astonishing.

It sends an unmistakable signal that the country's chief executive is out of the loop on some of the most sensitive security matters facing his administration.

What is even more astonishing is that The Associated Press had reported the sale in a Feb. 11 dispatch that was carried in most major U.S. newspapers.

The financial press also provided extensive coverage.

Mr. Bush, of course, has never been one to read newspapers, relying instead on his staff to provide daily news briefings.

Now he is paying a heavy political price for not doing his homework.

What may be most astonishing of all, though, is the secrecy surrounding this transaction.

Given the security questions that port operations were sure to raise, the administration should have briefed Congress on the details long ago.

Instead, it is only now that Congress and the public have learned of a secret deal worked out by the administration and the company, Dubai Ports, based in United Arab Emirates, that was part of the approval process.

The Associated Press reports that, unlike most foreign takeover transactions, the agreement does not require the company to keep business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court order.

Nor does it require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests -- a provision that experts say is routine in other foreign sales.

The administration is trying to allay opposition by reminding critics that security is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and Customs, no matter who runs port operations.

But is it any wonder that few in Congress are buying it?

Mr. Bush's penchant for secrecy, and his disdain for opposing views, have undermined his credibility, this time, perhaps, to a point beyond repair.

end quotes

AMERICA is the one paying the price for George W. Bush's incompetence, arrogance, and ineptitude .....

Not George .....

[Livyjr]

"Clueless on ports - The White House says President Bush didn't know of the deal until recently" 
 
Albany, New York Times Union Editorial
First published: Friday, February 24, 2006

The White House now acknowledges that President Bush wasn't aware that an Arab company was taking over operations at six American ports until last weekend.

That's astonishing.

It sends an unmistakable signal that the country's chief executive is out of the loop on some of the most sensitive security matters facing his administration.

"Yet another big lie Bush won't admit"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, February 23, 2006

There is no use wasting words to urge the Bush administration to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

No amount of international embarrassment, no pleas from the United Nations or from European governments -- not even a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court -- changes the way the United States conducts itself there.

We must assume that the shame of Guantanamo is with us for as long as the shameless George W. Bush is president.

So who is being held at this camp, where detainees have no real hope of release, or of being formally charged, or even of seeing what evidence there may be against them?

Who are these men in such despair that many resort to hunger strikes, but are force-fed by tube -- strapped into restraining chairs, if necessary -- lest the United States suffer the additional humiliation of creating Muslim martyrs?

Our government tells us the prisoners at Guantanamo are "the worst of the worst," to use Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's phrase.

"They're terrorists."

"They're bomb-makers, they're facilitators of terror."

"They're members of al-Qaida and the Taliban" is the description from the ever-reliable lips of Vice President Dick Cheney.

"They were there to kill," the President has asserted.

That is what our political leaders say.

But it is not what officials who are actually in charge of holding the prisoners say.

The government produced documents on 517 Guantanamo detainees for Combatant Status Review Tribunals -- military reviews of detainees' cases that were prompted by the Supreme Court's order that they be afforded some sort of legal process.

The documents became publicly available because of separate litigation.

The findings were analyzed by Seton Hall University law school students, led by Mark Denbeaux and Joshua Denbeaux, lawyers who represent two Tunisian detainees.

What do the official findings of the U.S. military show?

More than half of the so-called enemy combatants at Guantanamo were determined to have committed no hostile act against U.S. or coalition forces.

This was so even though the definition of a "hostile act" was loose enough to include fleeing a camp that had been bombed, or being picked up in an area of Pakistan where others believed to be fighters had fled.

Evidence the government used as proof that someone was an "enemy combatant" included associating with unnamed individuals or groups purported to have terrorist ties -- or possessing a rifle, using a guest house, possessing a Casio watch or wearing olive-drab clothing.

"These are the government's words," Joshua Denbeaux said.

"These are the government's proofs."

Only 7 percent of detainees actually were captured by U.S. and coalition forces.

The rest were rounded up by Pakistani authorities, by the Afghan Northern Alliance or by other militias and armed groups -- some of whom were paid bounties for handing over men alleged to be terrorists.

Most detainees are being held not for fighting, but because they were found to have some "association" with a group suspected of terrorist ties.

No definition of association is supplied.

It could be, Joshua Denbeaux said, that "you once passed him on the street."

"Or you could be Osama bin Laden's cousin."

"You can't tell."

Pentagon spokesman Maj. Michael Shavers said the Seton Hall report is flawed because its authors didn't have access to classified evidence.

But the report doesn't claim to be based on evidence.

It analyzes the government's official findings -- determinations made by military authorities after they themselves reviewed all available evidence, classified or unclassified.

"We're holding them responsible for what they found," said Mark Denbeaux.

The portrait that emerges from the Seton Hall study is strikingly similar to the picture developed in a separate analysis of government documents by Corine Hegland of National Journal.

Hegland reviewed files on 132 men and review-board transcripts for 314 Guantanamo detainees.

She, too, found that relatively few were judged to have committed hostile acts.

She even uncovered "a few men whose most direct link to hostilities appears to be getting wounded by one of the thousands of American bombs dropped on Afghanistan."

No doubt there are dangerous men being held at Guantanamo.

But we do not, and cannot, know how many.

We know that government officials often lie, and that official documents can reveal a tale more true.

The essential truth about Guantanamo is now being revealed as tragic farce.

The Bush administration cannot and will not change course, because to do so would expose another gross error, and another big lie.

Marie Cocco's e-mail address is mariecocco@washpost.com.

[Livyjr]

"Clueless on ports - The White House says President Bush didn't know of the deal until recently" 
 
Albany, New York Times Union Editorial
First published: Friday, February 24, 2006

The White House now acknowledges that President Bush wasn't aware that an Arab company was taking over operations at six American ports until last weekend.

That's astonishing.

It sends an unmistakable signal that the country's chief executive is out of the loop on some of the most sensitive security matters facing his administration.

The administration is trying to allay opposition by reminding critics that security is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and Customs, no matter who runs port operations.

But is it any wonder that few in Congress are buying it?

Mr. Bush's penchant for secrecy, and his disdain for opposing views, have undermined his credibility, this time, perhaps, to a point beyond repair.

"Difficult to Discern Who Runs U.S. Ports"

By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer

Thu Feb 23, 3:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Who's in charge of security at U.S. seaports?

There's no simple answer to that question — a critical part of the debate over the takeover of major port operations by a United Arab Emirates company.

All seaports are different and the biggest ones are complex.

Responsibility for security is spread among government agencies: the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, terminal operators and state and local port authorities.

The Homeland Security Department said over a year ago that confusion about responsibility had delayed a cargo security plan.

"During the two years since DHS was established, this has frequently led to questions of 'who's in charge?'" said a draft of the plan, released in December 2004.

Even now, said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the Bush administration doesn't take port security seriously.

"It has consistently submitted inadequate funding requests and has routinely missed critical security deadlines that were required by law," he said.

The administration says it has strengthened port security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, pointing to increased funding and new security technology.

Customs and Border Protection oversees the cargo that arrives in more than 20,000 shipping containers that pass through U.S. ports daily.

The Coast Guard approves security plans for 10,000 ships and 5,000 port facilities.

Since July 1, 2004, the Coast Guard has been responsible for making sure those plans are carried out.

The nation's larger ports have dozens of separate facilities within them, including oil refineries, warehouses, fuel farms, power plants and factories.

The terminal operator is responsible for security at its own terminal and the area within the port where cargo is loaded, unloaded or transferred, according to the Homeland Security Department.

UAE-based Dubai Ports World would operate some of the terminals at a half-dozen of the nation's largest seaports: Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, and Newark, N.J.

"They're required to have a security plan," said Dennis Murphy, former Customs port director at the Port of Norfolk and former Homeland Security spokesman.

The plan has to include security measures such as lighting, fencing, locks and background checks on employees, he said.

"They have to know who the people are who they're hiring," Murphy said.

A fact sheet from the Homeland Security Department said that the "people working on the docks" and security personnel would not change under the pending deal.

Murphy said the entire supply chain is scrutinized by a number of people — including the buyer, the seller and the shipper along with federal officials — who want to make sure cargo moves where it's supposed to move.

"It's an elaborate ballet of information and machinery," he said.

"You don't mess around."

"If you divert a container here and there, there are investigators who will crawl all over your personal life if they think anything is hinky."

Many port security initiatives since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have been the result of laws passed by Congress.

It was the National Maritime Transportation Security Act, passed in November 2002, that put the Coast Guard in charge of tightening port security.
___

On the Net:

U.S. Coast Guard: http://www.uscg.mil

Homeland Security Department: http://www.dhs.gov

[Livyjr]

from the February 24, 2006 edition

"Port flap serious test for Bush"

Both parties in Congress call for more oversight - and this time, the public seems to agree.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – Cooler heads are beginning to prevail.

A week that began with veto threats from President Bush and sharp language aimed right back from Republicans has turned to sober briefings and a consideration of the facts.

But as the flap unfolds over a deal to transfer management of six major US ports to a Middle Eastern company, Mr. Bush faces a serious test of his political skill after blundering in dealings with members of his own party, analysts say.

The man who once campaigned as a uniter appears to have done just that - uniting both parties against him.

And once again, in the wake of the furor over warrantless wiretapping, the White House and Congress are at loggerheads over national security, specifically over how much the executive branch needs to consult with legislators and submit to oversight.

The difference is that, this time, the American public has latched onto the issue, and opposes the president's position.

Speaking to reporters after a Cabinet meeting Thursday morning, Bush offered reassurances that the ports-management deal involving a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Dubai Ports World, would not jeopardize American security.

He also echoed Wednesday's comment from his press secretary that the White House "probably should have briefed Congress about [the deal] sooner."

"We'll continue to talk to people in Congress and explain clearly why the decision was made," Bush said Thursday, referring to a "sense of calm" that cabinet members are bringing to the issue.

Soon after, the Senate Armed Services Committee received an open briefing by several federal departments and agencies involved in the ports deal.

Bush is juggling many interests as he seeks to tamp down the controversy.

On the world stage, he is keen on promoting American interests in the globalized economy.

In the war on terror, he needs friends around the world, calling the UAE a "valuable ally."

Domestically, with his political capital low, he needs to maintain a good working relationship with Congress in order to further his agenda.

And with the American people, he cannot afford to sink any lower in job approval, lest he turn himself into a liability in the Republican battle to maintain control of Congress.

Homeland security is Bush's strongest issue in the polls, and at the beginning of the week, he had appeared to jeopardize that strength by taking the unpopular position on the ports deal.

"There's an inherent American fear that their ports are vulnerable and they are made even more so by this deal," says Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council.

"Whether it's based on facts or fears is another matter, but it's real and it's bipartisan and it's visceral...."

"This is one of those rare moments where the Democrats are handed a wedge issue against Republicans on national security."

"They're not going to give the administration any leeway."

The unfortunate fact for Bush is that, while he counts the UAE as a loyal friend in the war on terror, two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there.

The 9/11 Commission report states that "the vast majority of the money funding the Sept. 11 attacks flowed through the UAE."

The US federal agencies in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, which vetted the sale of the management of six US ports - in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Miami - had concluded that Dubai Ports World (which is owned by the government of Dubai, one of the UAE emirates) would have no bearing on security at the ports.

Security is handled by the US Coast Guard and Customs Service.

It has been revealed that the Dubai company agreed to special provisions aimed at ensuring US security.

Analysts doubt the conflict between Bush and Congress will reach the point of a presidential veto of a bill to overturn or inject more oversight into the UAE deal.

After more than five years in office, Bush has yet to veto a single bill, and it hardly makes sense politically for the first veto to come on a piece of national security legislation supported by most of the Republican Party, Mr. Wittmann says.

The sense that a veto will be averted was reflected in a comment Wednesday by Sen. John Warner ® of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on Fox News:

"I anticipate that the views of the commander in chief will eventually prevail, and that the country will settle back and suddenly realize - maybe not suddenly, but gradually realize - that the administration did the right thing."

What continues to strike political analysts is how Bush handled the controversy when it first burst forth.

The White House has acknowledged that Bush was not in on the decision, but under the approval process laid out in the 1975 law that established the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the president's direct involvement was not required.

Still, having found out that the port-management sale by a British firm to Dubai World Ports could bring negative political fallout, Bush jumped in with a threat to veto any legislation killing or delaying the deal.

"He nailed his colors to the mast in a way that was striking," says James Pfiffner, a professor of public policy at George Mason University.

"Politically, it might have been wise, once Bush found out, to touch base [with Congress] instead of jumping out in front of it."

[Livyjr]

In an earlier Volume of Life in OUR America, we were following a recent United States Supreme Court decision that basically stripped us common citizens here in OUR America of OUR property rights if some big MONEY-BAGS land developer wanted to move us out of his or her way, so as to secure to them our property for their pleasures and profits .....

The United States Supreme Court, hereinafter "THE SUPREMES", thought that this would be a good thing for OUR America, apparently ...

Just as they thought that sending Dred Scott back to the slave pens in the 1850's was also a good thing ....

Since to them, us common folk are little more than dirt to be swept off the road and into the ditch, so as to not sully the soles of the shoes of the well-heeled ....

Who everybody knows ....

Are the only REAL TRUE AMERICANS ....

And the rest of us ...

Well ...

To them, the "SUPREMES" ....

We're just here, I guess ...

In the way, as always ....

"A man's home isn't a castle - Bills seek to curb public seizure of private property in wake of ruling"

By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Saturday, February 25, 2006

ALBANY -- More than two dozen bills to limit the government's right to seize property are on the table in New York this year, following last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the city of New London, Conn., to condemn a group of homes for economic development.

The landmark 5-4 decision, which upheld the government's right to take property from one private owner and give it to another, prompted states nationwide to look at the issue.

Proposals are emerging in New York to set new parameters on the use of eminent domain.

Condemning property for commercial use is not as rare as some might think.

One group that opposes eminent domain says it found 146 cases in New York state between 1998 and 2002 in which the process was at least threatened.

"New York was one of the biggest abusers," said Steve Anderson, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group that has defended homeowners in the New London case.

That case, he said, has served as a wake-up call to legislatures nationwide that the use of eminent domain is becoming a controversial issue.

It's not yet clear which, if any, of the ideas floating in New York may ultimately become law.

But the high court's decision, along with a spate of high-profile and controversial eminent domain fights across the state, including one looming in Albany's Park South neighborhood, have put this issue front and center.

Among the proposals:

Allowing only an elected body like a city council, rather than an industrial development agency, to take private property through eminent domain.

Forcing the condemning agency to pay 25 percent to 50 percent above market value for property it acquires by eminent domain.

Creating a commission to study the use of eminent domain.

Another proposal calls for an eminent domain ombudsman.

Increasing the public reporting and public review requirements for eminent domain proposals.

Requiring public referenda before eminent domain can be used.

Permitting eminent domain only to be used for public facilities such as hospitals or roads, but not for housing, retail or office projets.

"There's been a lot of activity and interest in this."

"I haven't seen every bill but I do know this: A lot of members have shown interest in becoming a co-sponsor," said Assemblyman Kenneth Zebrowski, D-New City, who is sponsoring one of the bills, which would make the use of eminent domain subject to local referenda if enough residents sign a petition.

In Zebrowski's own district, the village of Haverstraw wanted to take land and a building and give it to a group to build a condominium project and health care center.

"I think the (New London) decision got everyone's attention," added Assemblyman Paul Tokasz, D-Buffalo.

In his district, the town of Cheektowaga has proposed using eminent domain to buy homes in a neighborhood to be replaced with what Tokasz described as a "gated community."

Locally, the city of Albany plans to raze up to 89 homes and buy others in the troubled nine-block Park South neighborhood.

Boston-based Winn Development then wants to rehabilitate more than 200 homes and build over 400 new dwellings in the area.

Winn and the city want to negotiate home purchases, but haven't ruled out eminent domain.

While conservative groups generally oppose eminent domain, Sherry Appel, spokeswoman for the National League of Cities, cautions legislatures against enacting sweeping restrictions on the power.

It can be a useful tool to revitalize troubled urban areas, says Appel's group.

So does Peter Baynes, executive director of the state Conference of Mayors.

"It's really a tool of last resort," Baynes said, adding that only rarely is a condemnation completed and people are forced to sell their property.

Eminent domain, added Appel, should be decided on a local, case-by-case issue.

In some ways, the eminent domain debate has made for curious alignments in which groups normally thought of as liberal are advocating more local control, while conservatives such as the Institute for Justice, want state laws.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, D-Elmsford, who has a bill to study eminent domain, noted the issue has led to "a very strange political alliance between the left and the very hard right."

Karlin can be reached at 454-5758 or by e-mail at rkarlin@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

"Little nuance allowed in war"

By TOM TEEPEN
First published: Saturday, February 25, 2006

Your eyes do not betray you.

That is indeed George W. Bush standing on the gallows he so energetically built and has used so freely to hang others over the past five years.

Now it is Bush's turn on the trap door.

The irony is not that Bush is in this pickle but that he is there, not because he is surely wrong in letting a United Arab Emirates company run six U.S. ports, but because he just might be right.

The President insists the state-owned company has been vetted and meets all criteria.

The UAE has been helpful against terrorism, and to disallow the company now only because it is Arab and Muslim would dig the United States into an even deeper hole in the Muslim world.

But Bush has barred any such nuance -- as it turns out, his own included -- from discussions of what he insists is a "war" on terrorism.

When John Kerry ventured a little nuance in the '04 presidential race, he was kissed off as an elitist wimp who wanted group therapy for terrorists.

GOP campaign committees and White House spokesmen have even developed a particularly nasty political specialty in questioning the patriotism of decorated veterans who have opposed Bush's Iraq war or even just aspects of it.

Within months of 9/11, Karl Rove was telling GOP candidates to use the war to isolate Democrats and let bipartisanship go hang.

This administration has fought more imaginatively to create political safety for itself than to create safety from terrorists.

It is a measure of the administration's tin ear for the consequences of its own war politics that, in its hauteur and rich-kid sense of privilege, it didn't anticipate that this turn in port management would screech like fingernails on a blackboard.

Bush has left no political space for the counter-intuitive.

So the President finds himself beset not only by Democrats and other spurned counselors who are out to prove their anti-terrorist bona fides against all his past accusations but even by the congressional leaders of his own party who don't want to sink in this year's elections under the weight of an UAE whose terrorism-related record is decidedly mixed.

If Bush would only listen to them, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist actually are offering him a way out of this fix.

They suggest putting the port contract on ice for now and holding hearings on the proposal.

Instead, Bush threatens to veto any legislation that would even delay the changeover.

The President is once again in his habitual fallback position: Trust me.

Tom Teepen writes Cox Newspapers. His e-mail address is teepencolumn@coxnews.com

[Livyjr]

As George W. Bush and "friend" emerge from George's limo down there in Crawford, Texas to attend a private showing of "Brokeback Mountain" at the Crawford Bijou Theater ......

Before going back to George's "spread" with Dick Cheney to ride horses ...

And play around some with Dick's guns ...

And maybe shoot a lawyer or two ...

And "stuff" ....

Of course ....

I think I am finally beginning to understand exactly who George W. Bush is referring to when he says "his government" ......

Meaning the government that he personally answers to .....

Which is not OUR government at all ......

Back in the sixties, we had talk of the "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE" .....

And now ...

We have ...

"THE ARABIAN CANDIDATE" .....

As president of OUR America .....

These Arab OIL HIGH-ROLLERS come to Saratoga in the State of New York each year to spend big money on race horses at the annual sale up there .....

And maybe they take home some American politicians too .....

Stuck to their wallets like leeches ....

Almost impossible to remove .....

"Adviser says White House set on ports deal" 
 
By DONNA DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:36 p.m., Friday, February 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration said Friday it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates company to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports.

Lobbyists for Dubai Ports went to Capitol Hill Friday to brief staffers.

Of course, ethics reform is going begging ....

If these Congress boys and girls reformed ethics ...

They would be the ones going begging, instead .....

"Ethics reforms go begging"

First published: Friday, February 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Congress is out of town, and the liberties of the people are secure for the week.

What members are up to is begging for lots of money for their re-election campaigns, which usually means going somewhere out of state to woo rich partisans with special interests.

It usually doesn't mean visiting the local diner where voters might actually be seen.

This is not a pretty picture.

Yet as the system now exists, such money-trolling is an essential key to victory.

The relentless push for megabucks, according to retired South Carolina Democratic Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings in a recent Washington Post article, means that almost one-third of a senator's time is spent fundraising.

There is little time left for the serious work of legislating.

In fact, Hollings points out, the lobbyists don't even bother with the senator, who is poorly informed on most issues; they take the staff to lunch, where the real business is done.

The Jack Abramoff scandal and other evidence of lobbyist-congressional corruption have heightened pressure for ethics reform, but the congressional Republican leadership has been stalling and proposing only small fiddles around the margins that will do little to correct the problem.

Among prominent Republicans, only Arizona Sen. John McCain has the stomach to seriously tackle a political tactic from which the Bush administration has benefited.

His basic answer is to eliminate the confusion and obfuscation of current lobbying disclosure regulations and call for complete transparency.

McCain would force lobbyists and lawmakers to reveal for the first time how much money has been exchanged and for what projects.

Current law does not require any disclosure except that related to direct lobbying.

The big loophole is indirect grass-roots activity, during which lobbying organizations work to influence voters back home to press members of Congress for various causes.

McCain would put all that on the public record, too.

Of course voters would still be free to elect the fellow who rakes in the dough from polluting industries or any other controversial segment of society.

But at least they would have a better idea of who they are getting and what is going on.

The new House Republican leader, John Boehner of Ohio, prefers an expanded disclosure approach.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert originally proposed new restrictions on lobbying behavior.

Since the two disagree, the momentum for ethics reform has at least temporarily stalled in the House.

And any talk of enforcing new rules is thus far a joke.

The nominal House ethics committee has been moribund for more than a year, since it had the temerity to question the ethics of then-Republican leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Republicans in the Senate are similarly divided but seem ready to move more rapidly than the House, taking up various reform proposals next week.

Democrats, who play the money game just as greedily as the Republicans but are less favored because they are in the minority, are making a variety of proposals to impose restrictions on privately paid travel and meals as well as add grass-roots disclosures.

Their failure to reach a consensus means they have not been able to maximize the damage to Republicans.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., proposes a new ethics enforcement commission, appointed by congressional leaders but independent of Congress.

It would be made up of former judges and lawmakers, initiate investigations and issue recommendations for disciplinary actions.

Most importantly, its findings would be made public.

This is a good idea to reduce the power of partisan politics to cover up lawmakers' embarrassments.

And, finally, Abramoff has begun to sing to authorities, but the public has not yet heard the full song.

Republicans have been clever about claiming that Democrats are guilty of dealing with him too, but that's a partisan fib.

This guy gave directly only to Republicans; it is an insider scandal, and that's the party on the inside.

A few of Abramoff's Indian clients did contribute to friendly Democrats but under Abramoff's direction gave far less money to them than to GOP candidates.

It is true that money will always drive politics.

But in the name of good government, voters should have more say on how it's done.

Marianne Means' e-mail address is means@hearstdc.com.

[Livyjr]

And with respect to shooting lawyers in Texas ....

I have this in from the internet .....

From some concerned Americans down there in Texas ...

Concerned about that mammoth state's reputation ....

In the wake of this Cheney "lawyer shooting" incident down there ....

Who wish us uninformed yokels elsewhere in OUR America ...

To know that they too are a nation of laws down there ...

And not just a bunch of reckless gun-slingers ....

Like Dick ....

The BIG GRIZ from Wyoming .....

From: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department issued a statement today saying Vice President Cheney broke no law by shooting a lawyer instead of a quail over the weekend.

A TPWD spokesman noted that, in Texas, lawyers are not considered game creatures, and are thus not subject to seasonal limitations or bag limits.

It was further noted that lawyer hunting was encouraged as the state is overrun with the pesky creatures.

A local food critic said that, contrary to rumor, lawyers do not taste like chicken, but rather like bovine dung which is a major component of their composition.

Below is a complete listing of the regulations.....

Texas 2005- 2006 Season and Bag Limit On Attorneys

1. Any person with a valid Texas hunting license may harvest attorneys.

2. Attorneys may be taken with traps and deadfalls, however, currency may not be used as bait.

3. It is unlawful to chase, herd or harvest attorneys from a motor vehicle, watercraft or aircraft. Marked police vehicles may be used as shooting platforms.

4. It is unlawful to shout, "Whiplash, Ambulance, or Free Booze" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.

5. It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, or Infiniti dealerships.

6. It is unlawful for a hunter to disguise himself as a reporter, drug dealer, female law clerk, sheep, accident victim, physician, bookie, or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

7. Care should be used so as not to endanger any remaining species.

We would not want a repetition of the disaster that followed the "no limit" season on the subspecies, "Honest Lawyers".

That particular variety is near extinction.

Excessive harvesting could diminish the chances for survival of the Bill of Rights.

[Livyjr]

Well ...

Good morning America ...

And the world, as well .....

It's kind of cold up here where I am this morning ...

Down around six above the Fahrenhiet zero, anyway .....

Not that that means anything of course, in terms of how the world is working this morning ....

OR NOT, as seems to be the case more and more often as I look through the "news" .......

My own background as a human being is, I suppose, somewhat multi- and varied ....

And as a result, I have my own outlook on things not only here in OUR America ....

But in the wider world, as well ....

And being "curious" or "interested" by nature, much of the time ...

I am left wondering exactly where it was that that airplane took me to when I left Viet Nam all those years ago after completing my tour of duty over there in the U.S. Army ....

Because this place where I landed sure is hard to recognize a lot of times as what I recall OUR America was supposed to be .....

But that is how it goes ...

History itself is full of that ....

Nations that come into being ...

Hang around for a bit ...

And then ...

They disappear ...

Like species ....

Much is made of OUR America being this great big SUPERPOWER ......

And I think that is some of the most arrogant BULL ****, or BOVINE DUNG, that I have ever heard in my life .....

And as an American, a traditional American, as I style myself, I find much of this to be somewhat embarassing, to be truthful ......

"CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice is prancing around out there on the world stage spewing forth about all these different kinds of "democracies" that she somehow sees as being able to exist ....

An AMERICAN DEMOCRACY FOR AMERICANS ...

An EGYPTION DEMOCRACY FOR EGYPTIONS .....

An IRAQINAMI DEMOCRACY FOR IRAQINAMIS ......

Etc., etc., etc. ..........

And when I here this, I have to wonder that this woman is not out there actually sucking on her thumb while sitting on the floor and going GOO GOO all the time .....

Where on earth does she get this drivel from, is what I wonder ...

Since there are no parallels in HISTORY that I can find that support any of this rank twaddle that she is spinning out there ...

As though she were some kind of INTELLIGENT AUTHORITY on all of this ...

And the world itself was like a new born fool that couldn't get in out of the rain if it had to, without "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice being there to assist it along on its way .....

All I can think of is some words to a song ...

"What a long, strange trip it has been ...."

[jeffmoskin]

And the world itself was like a new born fool that couldn't get in out of the rain if it had to, without "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice being there to assist it along on its way .....

FWIW, "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice was a specialist in two countries: Czechoslovokia and the USSR.

Today, neither exist.

[Livyjr]

Much is made of OUR America being this great big SUPERPOWER ......

And I think that is some of the most arrogant BULL ****, or BOVINE DUNG, that I have ever heard in my life .....

And as an American, a traditional American, as I style myself, I find much of this to be somewhat embarassing, to be truthful ......

And here, according to ORTHODOX REPUBLICAN THEOLOGY as it exists in OUR America today ....

I have probably committed heresy and treason both by not jumping right up on the bandstand or tree stump or soap box to yell and cheer and wave flags about America being this alleged SUPERPOWER .......

But that is how it goes .....

The REPUBLICANS can and will and do delude themselves ...

While as a former combat veteran, I am aware of the pitfalls of doing so ...

And so ...

I avoid HYPE, me .....

Because HYPE gets common people like me killed and maimed ...

And that is just plain detrimental to my well-being in the long term, and so .....

In this forum, I am in here, where I try and keep to "current events", some of the time, anyway, since this thread is about LIFE in OUR America, the SPECTRUM .....

While at the same time I am over in another thread that is more specific to my views on life as a disabled combat veteran .....

And then, there is a third thread where I am talking about being an American citizen who is devoid of rights in a nation that touts itself as a "nation of laws" .....

And out of all of this, as I said ...

Well, I just end up wondering ...

Where on earth did that plane really take me to?

Or did I fall down some kind of rabbit hole into some kind of NEVER NEVER LAND when I stepped off that plane ...

Because the old home town sure does not look the same ...

And so .....

[Livyjr]

FWIW, "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice was a specialist in two countries: Czechoslovokia and the USSR.

Today, neither exist.

Thanks for bringing that in, jeffmoskin ...

Thanks indeed ...

For it is definitely relevant to this "musing" that I am doing in here this morning .....

I know that Ms. "CON-JOB" is called Doctor Rice, sometimes ....

Which implies something to someone, I guess ...

BUT NOT TO ME ...

Since all I ever seem to hear from her is alternating gusts and bouts of pure drivel followed by invective and demagoguery and then back to thumb-sucking and more GOO GOO's and then into drivel, and then, back to invective again ....

Slinging charges of this or that, as though Ms. "CON-JOB" were the only one in the world possessed of "evidence" to make these pronunciations about who in the world was doing what and when ...

When she herself was not even there to see or hear ....

RULE OF LAW, my *** ......

And so .....

[Livyjr]

Before this internet forum came into being right after the November 2004 presidential elections here in OUR America .....

People like us in here would not have been "talking", at all .....

Because to each other, we simply did not exist .....

Oh, it is possible that we might have passed each other by out there somewhere ...

But who would have ever known?

And certainly not me would be that answer .....

But that was then ....

And this is now ...

And so .....

Me, I don't like to rant ....

Although I probably can .....

But just ranting alone does not solve anything ...

Assuming that things can ever be "solved" ......

As opposed to "resolved" .....

And so ....

Here, what I want to do is to take the "rant" out of what I am saying above about Condoleeza Rice ...

Because what I am saying, I believe .....

And so ...

I want to develop those reasons why ....

While these thoughts are still fresh in my head ...

And what I want to do, is to make some comparisons ...

And maybe some connections ...

That might just demonstrate why Condoleeza Rice should not go around the world running her mouth so much .....

When it appears that she actually knows little of the history of the places and the peoples where she is when she is running her mouth so, as if the only peoples in the whole wide world who knew anything about anything were Americans .....

When the truth is more likely that we as a people don't know much at all ...

And that might be a kind and optimistic assessment ......

And for all of its talk about being some kind of SUPERPOWER ......

In a lot of ways, on the world stage, OUR America is just a pip-squeak nation ....

And so ...

As the words to the song go ...

Maybe we shouldn't get above our raising here ...

If you know what I mean .....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

I know that Ms. "CON-JOB" is called Doctor Rice, sometimes ....

Which implies something to someone, I guess ...

BUT NOT TO ME ...

Since all I ever seem to hear from her is alternating gusts and bouts of pure drivel followed by invective and demagoguery and then back to thumb-sucking and more GOO GOO's and then into drivel, and then, back to invective again ....

Slinging charges of this or that, as though Ms. "CON-JOB" were the only one in the world possessed of "evidence" to make these pronunciations about who in the world was doing what and when ...

When she herself was not even there to see or hear ....

RULE OF LAW, my *** ......

And so .....

I am not a Democrat, me .....

Although generally, I do get along with Democrats alright ....

And I am not a REPUBLICAN ....

Although I once was .....

A "theorectical" one, anyway ....

Until I got to meet some real ones ....

At which time I severed my membership in that political organization for good ...

And put them up on top of my list of domestic enemies of the United States Constitution ....

Along with these CONSERVATIVES ....

Of which I also am not one ....

And so ...

I don't really have some political axe to grind in here ....

Not "PARTY" wise, anyway .....

My "axe" would be from the standpoint of an American citizen wondering just who in the hell this BUSHCO crowd really is .....

And how it is that they can make a valid claim to be in charge of anything here in this world of OURS when they seem to know so little about it ...

Things such as exactly how old some of these Middle Eastern nations really are, as compared to OUR America .....

And so .....

OUR United States of America came into being in 1777 at the earliest ....

While places like Syria go back to the times of Alexander the Great .....

And likely beyond that as well ...

Back to antiquity .....

However long ago that was .....

And there was no "United States of America" back then .....

And there certainly was no London, England ...

Or Great Britain ...

Or British Empire .....

Nor was there a Rome .....

And Rome itself was dead and gone long before there was a United States of America ....

And so ...

WHY DO WE THINK THAT WE KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT RUNNING THE WORLD, AND ESPECIALLY THE MIDDLE EAST, WHEN THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES OUR LEADERS, PEOPLE LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, SEEM TO KNOW NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE WORLD THAT THEY SEEM TO BE CLAIMING ONLY THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR ......

And us, as well ....

If these people are out there in OUR names making foolish statements .....

And acting as complete blithering airheads .....

JUST HOW IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR US?

And so ......

[Livyjr]

And here, to make my point, I want to go back to the days of ancient Rome ....

AND THE MIDDLE EAST ....

And this is a little over 2,000 years ago ...

Before Jesus was even born ...

For those of you who reckon time ....

Based on that event .....

And this is history that OUR forefathers in liberty knew well ....

As well as being history that ALL of OUR United States Senators should be able to quote from, chapter and verse ....

If I, a common citizen here in OUR America am aware of all these things, as a requirement of MY OWN CITIZENSHIP, here in OUR America .....

And before George W. Bush ever thought of executing his ill-fated, catestrophically successful armored BLITZKREIG of IRAQINAM, his "CUSTER-RUN" right into the heart of HIS ENEMIES ....

George should have been able to draw readily upon this history ...

To show us here in OUR America why he wasn't going to be blindly rushing into the very same mess as his prior counterpart, Marcus Licinius Crassus, who met his own doom in this same pasrt of the world, some time before America's George came on the scene to try and repeat Crassus' folly in IRAQINAM .....

And "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice especially should have known this history ...

Since it is the history of those to whom she preaches ...

And likely ...

Just likely .....

They know it well ...

As do I .....

And a good part of the known world as well, for that matter .....

Everybody, apparently, but "CON-JOB CONNIE" ...

And America's George .....

"Article for Military History Magazine"

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blcarrhae

Roman Disaster at Carrhae

Eager to match the military achievements of his two illustrious rivals, Marcus Licinius Crassus led an army into Parthia.

Instead of glory, all he found was death.

By Brian Dent

In 53 B.C., seven Roman legions, some 50,000 men, marched into the searing Mesopotamian desert.

They had come to this eastern province of the kingdom of Parthia seeking conquest and plunder but, deceived by a false guide and commanded by an arrogant blunderer, the legions were almost annihilated.

Aside from a lucky few, the Romans were either slaughtered and their bodies mutilated, or else were captured and enslaved.

Their commander was decapitated, and his head was used as an ornament at the banquet of the Parthian king.

Such was the Battle of Carrhae, a disaster almost unmatched in the otherwise glorious history of Roman arms.

It was a battle of shocking brutality, even by ancient standards.

It was also an early example of hit-and-run, guerrilla-style warfare, carried out in a manner that would stand up well by 21st century standards.

Most of all, it was a monument to the delusions, conceits and military incompetence of the Roman commander, Marcus Licinius Crassus.

Our guide across this ancient battlefield will be the famous 1st-century Greek biographer, Plutarch.

Where quotation marks are used in this article, the words are his.

Rome at the time of Carrhae, though still a republic, was ruled by three powerful public figures known as the First Triumvirate: Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus-known to posterity as Pompey the Great-Gaius Julius Caesar and Marcus Licinius Crassus.

Pompey was Rome's most famous general, having earned his honorific title of Magnus for his many victories and conquests.

The young aristocrat Caesar had been known mostly for his eloquent speeches in the Senate, but the martial talents he had recently displayed in Gaul and Britannia were fast giving rise to a new legend.

Crassus, a nouveau riche entrepreneur, was both a successful politician and the richest man in Rome.

For all of his wealth and political power, Crassus, according to the 1st century Greek historian Plutarch, had always envied Pompey's military fame.

When Caesar too began to exhibit military prowess, Crassus, then aged 60, suddenly decided to seek conquests of his own.

"Being strangely puffed up, and his head heated," Plutarch wrote, "he proposed himself in his hopes to pass as far as Bactria and India, and the utmost ocean."

end quotes

And there I will stop for the moment .....

As those words of Plutarch's above here about "being strangely puffed up, and his head heated" could apply to George W. Bush as well as Crassus .....

And so .....

A pause ....

To let that thought sink in ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

"Article for Military History Magazine"

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blcarrhae

Roman Disaster at Carrhae

Eager to match the military achievements of his two illustrious rivals, Marcus Licinius Crassus led an army into Parthia.

Instead of glory, all he found was death.

By Brian Dent
 
In 53 B.C., seven Roman legions, some 50,000 men, marched into the searing Mesopotamian desert.

They had come to this eastern province of the kingdom of Parthia seeking conquest and plunder but, deceived by a false guide and commanded by an arrogant blunderer, the legions were almost annihilated.

Aside from a lucky few, the Romans were either slaughtered and their bodies mutilated, or else were captured and enslaved.

Their commander was decapitated, and his head was used as an ornament at the banquet of the Parthian king.

It was also an early example of hit-and-run, guerrilla-style warfare, carried out in a manner that would stand up well by 21st century standards.

Most of all, it was a monument to the delusions, conceits and military incompetence of the Roman commander, Marcus Licinius Crassus.

SO .....

They do fight back over there .....

And look at that ...

They cut off people's heads, too ....

So why is America, the mightiest SUPERPOWER the world has ever seen, at least according to George W. Bush and HIS GOVERNMENT, surprised at any of this?

And that answer is because of a failure of intelligence which is due to a complete and total lack of intelligence in George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, "CON-JOB CONNIE" Rice, who is full of beans, and Donald Rumsfeld ......

AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE ....

Whose purpose in OUR form of government is to be the SEAT OF KNOWLEDGE to counter-balance the popular side of OUR Congress, which is the House of Representatives .....

OUR UNITED STATES SENATE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A REPOSITORY OF KNOWLEDGE AND INTELLIGENCE .....

And all we have today appears to be a swamp instead ....

Where if knowledge and intelligence do exist, they are buried out of sight down in the muck somewhere ...

Apparently completely out of arm reach by now .....

Since we are in fact mired down in IRAQINAM ....

And if any body of OUR government is responsible for that ...

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE OUR UNITED STATES SENATE ....

Which seems to be little more than George W. Bush's rubber stamp ...

Instead of a check-and-balance ....

And another question which comes to mind here, IS WHERE WERE THE MUSLIMS IN THIS CONFRONTATION BETWEEN "EAST" AND "WEST" when Crassus lost his head?

WHOSE SIDE WERE THE MUSLIMS ON?

The question of the morning .....

Here in Life in OUR America .....

[Livyjr]

SO .....

They do fight back over there .....

And look at that ...

They cut off people's heads, too ....

So why is America, the mightiest SUPERPOWER the world has ever seen, at least according to George W. Bush and HIS GOVERNMENT, surprised at any of this?

"Article for Military History Magazine"

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blcarrhae

Roman Disaster at Carrhae (cont'd)

By Brian Dent

Crassus had some military accomplishments on his resumé.

He was one of Lucius Cornelius Sulla's lieutenants during the early civil wars, alongside young Pompey-the future triumvirs' rivalry dated from that time.

Crassus' first substantial opportunity to show his martial mettle came in 73 BC, when a band of gladiators, armed with cooking knives and led by a Thracian named Spartacus, broke out of their training school in Capua and managed to capture a wagonload of weapons.

Before long the breakout snowballed into a full-fledged slave revolt throughout Italy that became known as the Third Servile War.

Under Spartacus' leadership the slaves won several pitched battles over Roman troops, and were soon well on their way to marching out of Italy to freedom.

Alarmed, the Roman Senate gave Crassus command of an army.

One of his first acts was to revive the ancient practice of decimation:

every tenth man in a unit that had been routed by Spartacus was punished with death.

Next, in 71 BC Crassus maneuvered Spartacus onto the peninsula of Rhegium, where he bottled up the slave army by building a trench across the isthmus, described by Plutarch as "three-hundred furlongs long, fifteen feet broad and as much in depth."

Spartacus and one-third of his force managed to break out on a wild, snowy night, however, by filling a section of the trench with earth, thereby making it passable.

Spartacus still hoped to fight his way out of Italy.

But after winning another battle over one of Crassus' lieutenants, the slaves, over-confident and never really disciplined, persuaded him to lead them in a final, decisive battle.

This was exactly what Crassus wanted, since Pompey was coming with an army from Iberia, and Crassus desperately needed a quick victory before his old rival arrived.

In this final battle the slave army was indeed destroyed and according to Plutarch Spartacus himself, "deserted by those that were about him … surrounded by the enemy and bravely defending himself, was cut in pieces."

Pompey arrived in Italy in time to assist Crassus in rounding up the surviving slaves, who were crucified on rows of crosses that lined the Appian Way.

For that mopping up operation, coupled with his more significant conquests in Iberia, the Senate awarded him a formal triumph, while Crassus had to settle for a mere ovation.

What is more, the Roman citizens, according to Plutarch, thought Crassus petty for accepting even that much - a victory over slaves was not thought to be very heroic.

Perhaps Crassus recalled that turn of events 18 years later, when his mind turned once again to thoughts of military glory.

When Crassus revived his army career, the opponent he chose was the Parthian kingdom.

The Parthians were Iranian, inheritors of the old Persian Empire that had been destroyed by Alexander the Great in 331 BC.

The Parthians were not at war with Rome, and both Sulla and Pompey, on previous tours of duty in the east, had negotiated with them on friendly terms.

But Parthia was big enough and close enough to be a potential nuisance to Rome, and Crassus was looking for new worlds to conquer.

end quotes

And once again, for the moment, I will stop right here in this narrative .....

To let these words above sink in .....

As they somehow sound oh so familiar .....

So modern ...

SO ...

Well, let's face it ...

SO VERY GEORGE W. BUSH ....

That you just have to wonder ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And since we are talking of "knowledge" in here at the moment, "knowledge" of what came before us, as a nation, knowledge that OUR forefathers in liberty had at the beginnings of this nation, when THEY decided that WE should have a two-house LEGISLATURE, with a SENATE and an ASSEMBLY .....

We have ....

"Ancient Sun Temple Uncovered in Cairo"

By OMAR SINAN, Associated Press Writer

Sun Feb 26, 5:03 PM ET

CAIRO, Egypt - Archaeologists discovered a pharaonic sun temple with large statues believed to be of King Ramses II under an outdoor marketplace in Cairo, Egypt's antiquities chief said Sunday.

The partially uncovered site is the largest sun temple ever found in the capital's Aim Shams and Matariya districts, where the ancient city of Heliopolis — the center of pharaonic sun worship — was located, Zahi Hawass told The Associated Press.

Among the artifacts was a pink granite statue weighing 4 to 5 tons whose features "resemble those of Ramses II," said Hawass, head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities.

Also found was a 5-foot-high statue of a seated figure with hieroglyphics that include three cartouches with the name of Ramses II, and a 3-ton head of royal statue, the council said in a statement.

The green pavement stones of the temple's floor were also uncovered.

An Egyptian team working in cooperation with the German Archaeological Mission in Egypt discovered the site under the Souq al-Khamis, a popular market in eastern Cairo, Hawass said.

"The market has to be removed" as archeologists excavate the entire site, Hawass said.

"Other significant discoveries might be waiting to be excavated now, and compensation will be paid to the shop owners."

"We are planning to make the whole area as a tourists and archaeological site, maybe after two years," he said.

King Ramses II, who ruled Egypt for 66 years from 1270 to 1213 B.C., had erected monuments up and down the Nile with records of his achievements, as well as building temples — including Abu Simbel, erected near what is now Egypt's southern border.

Numerous temples to Egypt's sun gods — particularly the chief god Ra — were built in ancient Heliopolis.

But little remains of what was once the ancient Egyptians' most sacred cities, since much of the stone used in the temples was later plundered.

The area is now covered with residential neighborhoods, close to a modern district called Heliopolis, in Egypt's packed capital.

[Livyjr]

Recently, I was having a conversation out there in "reality" with a younger person about these particular times that we find ourselves in today ...

And I asked this person how long ago in history Julius Caesar was ....

And he thought on it for a bit ...

And then said maybe 700 years ago or so ....

And I said, no, it was over 2,000 years ago .....

At a time when the urban population of the city of Rome could have been around 1,000,000 people .....

Which this young person then remarked was quite a few more than we have around here where we live ...

And I had to allow that that was so ....

There are not a million people here in my town ......

3,500 give or take .....

But that's kind of shy of a million ....

And so ....

And the point of this discussion had to do with GOVERNMENTS ......

And maybe more specifically, KNOWLEDGE of or about GOVERNMENTS .....

And the point there is ....

THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW IN THAT REALM .......

IT HAS ALL BEEN TRIED .....

And so ......

Where other peoples in the world have had a couple of thousand years to work things out for themselves ......

Maybe we should be a little more hesitant the next time about going into a much older country than OURS is, LIKE VIET NAM, for example, to tell those people how they now have to live, as George W. Bush is trying to do not only in IRAQINAM and Afghanistan, but seemingly around the world as well, these days .....

Because maybe those people will just say "**** you" .....

As the Parthians did to mighty Rome ....

As the Vietnamese did to the MIGHTY USA ....

And who can really blame them ...

If they did .....

And that answer would be ...

Not a fellow freedom-loving human being ....

Only a tyrant would do that ...

And so ....