"I think war is a dangerous place!"

- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.; May 7, 2003

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Nov 9 2004, 06:36 PM)

I was recently involved in a series of back and forth e-mails with a Harvard history professor over matters involving John Kerry's military service in Viet Nam.


Anyway, the Viet Nam paradigm now, according to this Harvard history person, is that Viet Nam was really a grand and glorious undertaking by the United States, so that if people like me, who were there, have a contrary opinion, because of having been there, then, because of the "paradigm", we don't have an opinion!

If I went to Viet Nam, say, and I saw a village full of women and children burned to the ground, and I then said I saw a village full of women and children in Viet Nam burned to the ground in defense of a position taken by John Kerry that such conduct was indeed occurring in Viet Nam; then, because the paradigm says that such things never happened, then, I don't have anything valid to say, and I am dismissed as having a point-of-view, an eye-witness account eliminated because it messes up the model being used by academe, at least at Harvard, that describes Viet Nam as grand and glorious!

Thus, the Viet Nam war statistics are being purged, the history is being re-written, and in the course of that, people like me who went to Viet Nam and came back with contrary opinions on the matter are simply being expunged from the public record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't it really, really difficult for us who down deep want absolutely nothing less than the best for and FROM our country to read Livyjr's true accounts of the stories behind the stories?

Difficult, yes, but to not believe what we know is going on would be the height of ostrich behavior. Example: Livyjr mentions above, some observations I made concerning the ugly and evil things President Nixon was caught doing and which led to his impeachment. For those younger members on this forum, who are unaware of all this, just go to Google and type in Millhouse Nixon. There is much to learn.

Most of us have an innate desire to believe the best of our leaders. We might believe something was not handled in a forthright manner but do not want to believe it was a deliberate, calculated. " There must be some extenuating circumstances. " Up to the the Nixon administration, I felt pretty much that way -- not totally naive of course -- but more than willing to " understand. " Now, I do understand. Certain things happen in a certain way because that is the way they were planned to happen.

How soon we forget!

Our elected leaders know that and count on it.

When did the public last seriously make any outcry concerning Abu Ghraib?

We watched the G.I.'s take the fall. They probably were culpable and accountable for their actions. But---Why- why - why - are we not sending letters, continually, to our Senators and Reps DEMANDING an explanation of Abu Ghraib? ( I have ) .
Does it not make us feel as dirty as the officers and civilian people who originated and condoned Abu Ghraib should feel, to go silently along with the whitewashing of these criminals. I call them criminals because they are murdering what we like to call our " American way of Life ." And that makes them criminals, to me. And we stand silently by, making little murmurs on how that is not right.

Iraq is in so many ways, Viet Nam restored. The public would not entertain the thought of the so called " UnAmerican " things we did then.

And are now doing.

And many still do not believe it.

Our administration loves to throw the term " freedom " around. Makes a big hit to the voters. Freedom. Don't we all love it?

Are we free? Are we getting freer, if there is such a word? Decide for yourself.

Ask the reporters who won't divulge the source of their confidential information.

As they have always legally done.

Back around 50 - 60 years ago, long before T.V., there was a mystery program on the radio called" THE SHADOW "

" One of the lines spoken, always in a menacing tone was " WHO KNOWS WHAT EVIL LURKS IN THE HEARTS OF MEN ?'" THE SHADOW KNOWS "

It was a scary program, then.

What is going on now is even more scary.

A.B.

You are in a tough spot, Livyjr. I may have a few years on you, but I think in many ways you have experienced a lot more learning in your years than I. However, one of the things I have come to believe is that while may be justice in the world, you will not find it in a court of law.

I have had my "day in court", and have found that a courtroom contains two professional liars (spelled' lawyers') each trying to convince a former lawyer in a black robe (who got bored with lawyering) that HE and only HE is telling the truth. The judge, having heard this crap for some 20 years, has his mind on going fishing or hunting or fixing up his house. Anything BUT the case before him. So I wish you good luck in your endeavor, but you might explore other non-judicial ways of dealing with the situation.

And I wish we had even more people "in here." As you said at the onset, WE ARE HISTORY. And what we are writing here is the story of OUR America as it has played out during our lives, with occasional reflections on the history that occurred before us which we can now access at the click of a mouse. What a miracle. My wife now refers to me as a "mouse potato." I consider it a compliment.

And we ARE having an effect. In reading this morning's NY Times, it turns out that the bloggers are responsible for getting out the story on James D Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon, believed to be the one who outed Valerie Plame.

Democrats Want Investigation of Reporter Using Fake Name
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Two Democrats in Congress are pressing for investigations into how a Washington reporter who used a pseudonym managed to gain access to the White House and had access to classified documents that named Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative.

The Democrats, Representatives John Conyers Jr. of Michigan and Louise M. Slaughter from Rochester, wrote yesterday to Patrick Fitzgerald, the independent prosecutor appointed in the Plame case, seeking an investigation into how the reporter, James D. Guckert, who used the name Jeff Gannon, had access to classified documents that revealed the identity of Ms. Plame.

Until Wednesday when he resigned, Mr. Guckert worked for TalonNews.com, a Web site operated by Robert Eberle, a Texas Republican. Mr. Guckert said in a March 2004 interview with his own news service, in which he was referred to as Mr. Gannon, that the classified document had been "easily accessible." The two Democrats questioned how a person with "dubious qualifications" had access to such a document. The Democrats also wrote to the Secret Service seeking an explanation of how someone using a pseudonym was cleared to enter the White House daily press briefings as well as a presidential news conference last month. They said in their letter that allowing such a person in "appears to deviate significantly from heightened security measures you have employed recently."

Mr. Guckert resigned from Talon saying he had been harassed by liberals on the Internet. Bloggers grew suspicious of him after President Bush called on him at the news conference and the reporter suggested that Democrats had "divorced themselves from reality." Spearheaded by a Web site called Media Matters For America, the bloggers discredited him.

Mr. Guckert told CNN yesterday that he had been receiving threats and hate mail. He said he used the pseudonym Gannon because it was "easier to pronounce and remember."

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, told reporters yesterday that Mr. Bush did not know who Mr. Guckert was. Mr. McClellan said that Mr. Guckert entered the White House under his real name and "like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly, and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes, just like many others are."

Mr. Guckert was denied credentials to cover Capitol Hill, where press gallery workers said that his application indicated Talon was not his main source of income and that they could not verify its legitimacy.

Karl Frisch, a spokesman for Ms. Slaughter, said: "This is a guy who could not get credentialed by the House or the Senate press galleries, and yet managed to get into the White House and question the president" and have access to a top-secret document.

He added: "To imply he has no connection to the White House is just not credible."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/politics...print&position=

This could not have been done as recently as 10 years ago.

The CIA 9/11 commission completed its final "classified" report in August, two months before the election. This administration stuffed it in the closet, claiming it was too sensitive to release without first carefully analyzing it.

Malarky.

Here is a Letter to the Editor, in today's NY Times. I always read these because, like this blog, I find some of the most insightful comments come from the public at large:


The Unheeded Warnings of 9/11

To the Editor:

Re "9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings" (front page, Feb. 10):

As a criminal investigator and a security professional, I am appalled by the most recent revelations from the 9/11 commission. It is now abundantly clear that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented.

This was not a failure of intelligence or a failure to communicate. It was a failure to act. And the responsibility for this inaction rests squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush and his administration.

Furthermore, as a citizen, I am outraged by the Bush administration's blatant abuse of power in classifying this information before the election. Withholding the 9/11 commission's complete report has in itself risked national security, while the only thing at risk from the full release of the information was President Bush's re-election.

Perhaps as Americans celebrate the potential birth of democracy in Iraq, we should pause to mourn the loss of our own.

André M. Gorelkin
New York, Feb. 10, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/opinion/...print&position=


I couldn't have said it any better.

[quote=Abu Beacon,Feb 11 2005, 10:33 AM]
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Nov 9 2004, 06:36 PM)

Difficult, yes, but to not believe what we know is going on would be the height of ostrich behavior. Example: Livyjr mentions above, some observations I made concerning the ugly and evil things President Nixon was caught doing and which led to his impeachment. For those younger members on this forum, who are unaware of all this, just go to Google and type in Millhouse Nixon. There is much to learn.


This posting is just to make a correction in the above section of a posting I made earlier today.

I incorrectly used the term impeachment in reference to Ex President Richard M. Nixon. Mr. Nixon was not impeached, he resigned under pressure. If he had not resigned, he was told by his own party that he would be impeached and undoubtedly found guilty.

A.B.

Who do you think told him?
<_<

It was on the screen of a military video game that he saw, I think.

"WAR IS DANGEROUS!"

"DON'T DO THIS IN YOUR HOMES, KIDS!"

And let me extend a very warm welcome to you, Mr. big sky brad, and especially your flag, let it fly ever high in OUR skys - DO NOT TREAD ON ME!

Younger people in America are not taught about Millhouse Nixxon, A.B., according to my own surveys of younger people on that subject, BUT .....

WE, you, A.B., jeffmoskin, and me; WE WERE ALL THERE AS IT HAPPENED, and so, we saw American history being made!

In fact, we were a living part of that history!

To me, home from Viet Nam by that time, I thought that the Millhouse Nixxon business had finally pierced through this "VEIL OF HYPE" that has come to surround and characterize modern-day presidents, and especially this present incumbent, like a nimbus, or an aura!

"AMERICAN PRESIDENTS ARE NOT GODS; NOR ARE THEY GODLIKE!"

They are mortals like us!

That is why we give them ONLY four years at a time in which to be in that high office!

It is OUR high office, after all!

And now, we are back to the "CULT OF THE PRESIDENT" again, in spades!

Young people just don't know the story, A.B.; they weren't there, and the story just never got handed down!

And curious that, eh!

And it is OUR JOB as the elder generation to pass that info along. Otherwise, we have not secured our future as a civilization.

We have lost control of the "public airwaves." For the most part, the younger generation would rather get its news from the "Daily Show" than from Dan Blather or Tom Brokenjaw.

(BTW, I'm not sure that's all bad)

We are left with this blog. It's new, it's exciting.

But Faux News has higher ratings.

Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be!

That is how I see life, A.B., and then, I'm never really surprised by what comes next!

It does seem that there is a wheel turning, here, however, in terms of some pretty incredible historical events all transpiring within the space of OUR lifetimes!

You, A.B., and then jeffmoskin, have seen incredible changes that would fill a book in the telling, and would probably be dismissed by many as simply incredible tales spun by a pair of old men.

Unless I miss my bet, A.B., you had to have lived through part of the depression, and jeffmoskin's parents had to have direct experience of that same period that they would have passed on directly to jeffmoskin, as my parents did with me!

Your parents, A.B., probably had direct experience with WWI, and that would have shaped them in ways that then shaped you.

When I was young, I picked eggs at the neighbor's farm, and his mother would serve me lunch, when the family ate.

I was twelve or so.

She was around ninety as I recall.

It was incredible for me to listen to her talk of the times that she had lived through as a young girl, right in that same place, as originally, she had lived as a girl in the farm house right closest to ours.

Now, young people do not have this kind of access to people like this old woman, who was still very vital when I knew her!

Everything that we take for granted WAS GONE when this woman was but a young girl in that country, and jeffmoskin can attest to what the cold can be like at times up here in this country in the winter, especially back then, for winters now are less harsh than once they were, in my experience of them, anyway.

SO!

Our lives are shaped in ways that are much different than many of those who came after us, the younger generations, in here, and out there, as well, and it is interesting to see those ways that shaped us so, emerging in here, for all the world to be able to share the experiences of someone like you, A.B., when you were but a young boy, here in OUR America.

How the times were then!

What you saw through your young eyes as a boy!

What you heard with your young ears, from the radio news of the day!

Speak of these things, if you will, A.B.!

It will serve to give us some perspective in here, is my thought on that, anyway, A.B., and I am for that!

jeffmoskin, I truly believe that we are in the middle of a miracle here, myself, in that what should not by rights be able to happen, that being separate and disparate entities such as you, and A.B., and big sky brad, and me, holding this conversation, AT ALL; IT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING INSTEAD!

Absent a miracle, how else this thread in here, and this forum for this thread to even be in?

And so, in my way of seeing life, this miracle occurs when it is needed, and so, here we all are!

And you have defined the purpose of the miracle above, very well, jeffmoskin!

To pass on the lessons of real, live history, as a compass to guide the paths of those who would go wisely into our collective future!

Hence this thread!

The benefits of "multigenerational living."

I think we took a giant leap backward when we jumped in our cars and headed for the burbs.

Back in the 70s there was a progam called "The Waltons." Cornball I know, but this was a multigenerational family all living under one roof. What they lacked in material goods was more than made up for with family unity.

And it is something more than just family unity, jeffmoskin.

It is a sense of continuity, and community, and enduring!

I know as a young person that when I would listen to this old woman tell me of her life when she was young, I would realize, even at that age, just how "good" I had things, compared to how they could have been, BUT FOR .......

We don't seem to have that anymore, do we, the "BUT FOR ...."?

And to show Mr. George W. Bush just how right he is when he says this above:

Middle East - AP

"Four Dead After U.S. Convoy Attacked"

19 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents attacked a U.S. convoy and a government building near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, leaving at least four people dead, hospital workers said.

Two Iraqi National Guard troops were also killed while trying to defuse a roadside bomb.

Insurgents fired on the convoy in Al-Qahira district, just north of Mosul, sparking a battle that left at least four people dead and two wounded, doctors at the Al-Jumhuri Teaching Hospital said.

Insurgents also fired a rocket at the governor's building in Mosul, killing one woman and one man, as well as injuring four others, officials at the hospital said.

Two Iraqi National Guard troops were killed on Mosul's airport road while trying to diffuse a roadside bomb, police said.

U.S. and insurgent forces have fought fierce battles in recent days in Mosul, 360 kilometers (225 miles) northwest of Baghdad.

Fierce clashes broke out Saturday after American troops, responding to a mortar attack on one of their bases, were attacked with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades by insurgents inside a mosque, U.S. officials said.

The insurgents disabled a U.S. Army tank and a Stryker armored vehicle during the battle, which raged for hours around the mosque, Lt. Col. Erik Kurilla said.

U.S. troops killed nine insurgents but suffered no fatalities, Kurilla said.

end quotes

And so, here we are over in "Life in OUR America", Vol. II, and we still have as one of our background "issues" in here, the George W. Bush Holy War.

I wonder for how many more volumes that will continue to be the case?

"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating!"

- George W. Bush, as quoted by the New York Daily News; April 23, 2002

And thanks for catching this one, jeffmoskin!

It came up on my radar, BUT ...

I missed the connection with Valerie Plame!

And with respect to your statement about "making a difference", I just finished that book "The Power of Many" by Christian Crumlish, and in the concluding pages, he had this quote from a man named Howard Rheingold, as follows:

"It has taken 10 years of talk about 'new media' FOR A CRITICAL MASS to understand that every computer desktop, and now every pocket, IS A WORLDWIDE PRINTING PRESS, broadcasting station, place of assembly, and organizing tool - AND TO LEARN HOW TO USE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE TO AFFECT CHANGE!"

According to Rheingold, and here, I would say my own observations are somewhat in sync with this, "convergence", in here, is "reviving the town square, and producing political mini-parties."

In another observation made to the author of the book "The Power of Many", Rheingold said, and this is of direct relevance to this thread itself, and one of its underlying purposes, that:

"There has been a non-physical world for a very long time."

"There wouldn't have been a U.S. Revolution WITHOUT COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE."

Of interest as well is Rheingold's observation that "the Protestant Reformation was a vitual world in many ways, BUILT AROUND THE PRINTING PRESS," because Gutenberg's Bible ushered in the era THAT DEVOLVED CONTROL OVER THAT ANCIENT TEXT and distributed it, OPENING UP THE REALM OF DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION to literate people in all the written languages of Europe, and eventually, the world.

SO!

With that all said, it is my observation, after further experience with this thread, that we, the old folks in here, have two distinct advantages on OUR side:

a) we have come, in life, to realize that good things are not built overnight; and

b) we have the patience to wait!

And we also have sufficient experience of life now, to realize that good and bad exist at all times, and theorectically, at least, in all things, and so, it is up to us as to how we make these "qualities" manifest themselves, which is a direct function of how we put ourselves "forth" to the world, each moment of each and every day.

As to having people in here, jeffmoskin, THEY ARE!

They come in, they look around, sometimes they stay!

Change is a process, like all others, and it happens when and as it will.

Ours, I think, is to just keep stimulating that process by asking people to ask questions themselves!

And so, hence this thread!

LIVE!

Late-breaking.

Life, in OUR America!

And for more on Mr. Rheingold:

http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=414_0_1_0_M

http://www.edge.org/documents/questions/q2....html#rheingold

"Oftentimes, we live in a processed world - you know, PEOPLE FOCUS ON THE PROCESS and not results!"

- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.; May 29, 2003

Patience!

Persistence!

Tenacity!

All necessary elements, or ingredients, perhaps, of the process of change, Mr. jeffmoskin!

And it must start with us!

If these "qualities" are of no value to us, and if "need for change" is not apparent to us, then we will convince nobody of anything at all!

If we talk just to make the global warming problem a little worse, then we will not change any minds out there at all, nor will we serve as a vehicle for affecting change.

We, jeffmoskin; you, me, A.B.; we are a "Committee of Correspondence" ourselves, just like in the very beginning days of OUR America, and so, we need to learn about that process ourselves, even as we are the direct participants in that process.

Time!

For bread to rise before baking, time is always the final ingredient!

If you don't have it, or can't, or won't allow for it, don't try to bake bread!

"We'll be a great country where the fabrics are made up of groups and loving centers."

- George W. Bush, Kalamazoo, Michigan; March 27, 2001

I am one of these irrational individuals who frequently arises at 3:30 - 4:00 A.m.
Fortunately for me, my wife is already up and has a cup of of coffee and a slice of toast and marmalade waiting for me. This allows me to sit around for a while, get fully awake and think of things, past, present, and future. I tell myself that my best thoughts of the day come at this time. My problem is remembering them when I want to refer back to them. Par for the course. So what does this have to do with anything.

Well, this morning, my thoughts were really focused on a conversation on this thread recently. Livyjr, jeffmoskin, and I were writing about a person's views being based on their outlook on life. Livyjr established that as a very rationale reason why people think as they do. He is right on.

A phrase came into my mind this morning - " We are who we are because of who we were. " That is saying the same thing. Our life experiences establish our current thinking, our, views, our prejudices, our actions. jeffmoskin, who has an incredibly mature outlook on life and an ability to see deep into the news stories that make the rounds also knows this.

This is a thread that bears the stamp of Livyjr's personality. He welcomes other participants and so I have come aboard recently with a comment here and there.


In addition to " chewing " on a definite subject or news event as they happen, I would, with Livyjr's consent, also like to occasionally just write about random ideas and happenings as they come up. I say, " with Livyjr's consent " because I have no desire at all to change the flavor or personality of a thread which is very unique.

These postings I am referring to would be sort of open ended with new or different perspectives as I go along.

I sure make things as clear as mud, don't I?

Anyhow, let me know Livyjr, if this is something you would prefer not to happen on the Livyjr files.

My one thought for right now is this: ( not too original perhaps ). World War II, on which many of my life experiences are based was fought just about entirely with men and women who grew up during the depression, which by the way was the mother of all depressions as far as I am concerned. How did this shape their abilities, their ' code ', their feelings toward each other and toward the enemy? Did it make any difference at all? If my recall is correct, I believe there were in the vicinity of 7-8,000,000 troops in uniform between 1940-1946. I may be slightly off on these numbers. Regardless, it was a significant number of the American population as opposed to the small % of military personnel now in service as a ratio of the population. Almost EVERYONE had a close relative doing some military service. If Mr. Bush wants a real definition of patriotism, he should be consulting with people of that era, including those who were civilians, and not with his speech writers.

Livyjr, tell me your wishes and desires concerning this type of posting on a thread which is your baby.

A.B.

Me too.

Also, FWIW, the ORIGINAL "Life in OUR America" thread has been closed! Maybe we maxed out the file size or something. Anyway, for any body wanting to access the now closed thread, here's the way:

1. at the top of this page click MEMBERS.

2. at the bottom of that page, in "Search Options and Filters" type Livyjr and click GO

3. click the bold Livyjr link found on the member list.

4. click "find member's posts"

5. click the rightmost ">>" icon. That will put you back to the beginning of the original thread. You can navigate from there.
Since the thread is "closed", you cannot use the "quote" or "reply" buttons. You can, however, still use the "copy/paste" method.

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I think there were some posts very much worth saving.

BTW, thank you for your kind words about me, A.B.

I will periodically "bump" this post to keep it current.

Thanks for the link, Livyjr. But Mr. Rheingold goes on to say some words that are disturbing to me.


"Today, a small number of broadband Internet providers, such as Comcast and Viacom, are pushing for regulations that would enable them to pick and choose the content that travels over their part of the network. The courts also are coming to bear in this fight, as companies work to extend copyright far beyond its original intent and establish digital rights schemes that make it difficult to produce or distribute digital content not authorized by the entertainment industry.

"The consolidation of media ownership in the hands of a small number of individuals or cartels—who exchange political funding for legislative and regulatory favors—is being fought by organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But activists who have not been involved in technology or media issues need to join in this battle, because communication media under dispute are profoundly political tools. In coming decades, Internet-based media will exert more and more influence over what people know and believe and how they can organize and assemble for collective action."

We cannot allow the greedy corporations to throw an electronic monkey wench into this new electronic printing press.

The internet has the potential for doing more good for humanity than anything ever invented IMHO. The flip side is also obvious. It can be, as jeffmoskin rightly observes, an equally powerful force for misleading. That is why we all have to be ever diligent, never naive.

Greedy corporations indeed. Arm in arm with greedy politicians. What a combination.

Thanks for a perceptive post.

A.B.

A.B., I am a believer that things happen, as they happen!

When the teacher is ready, a student appears!

When a student is ready, a teacher appears!

A.B., let us face it!

Your generation is passing, so that your time to talk is now, while you are here among us.

When I started this thread, it was AS A RESULT of a lot of things, maybe more than it was FOR, or to do anything, at all.

Part of the impetus was that Harvard History Professor telling me that history is not "democratic" that I talked about back in Volume I of this thread.

I took that as an insult, in some ways, and as a challenge in other ways.

And so, we have this thread!

So, yes, A.B., I think you should speak, when you have something on your mind, and this is a good place to leave behind your words and thoughts, as this thread has been enduring.

And I think those thoughts will blend right in, myself.

jeffmoskin came in here to ask me why I was talking to myself, and I told him that I was waiting for him to come and make it a dialogue, and so, he has remained, in what I consider a "guest expositor" slot, for want of a better description, and you would be one as well, I think, A.B., and a welcome one as is jeffmoskin.

And I think it would be "good" for the content in here, the balance, the "mix", to have some of your recollections brought in here, for people to read and consider!

After all, how much truer American history can you get, than that?

If you think on it, jeffmoskin, there is always a move on to quash and suppress "free dialogue" between citizens in times of repression and tyranny!

In the days before the American Revolution, British troops were always on the look-out for printing presses in the hands of the "rabble", which was our forefathers in liberty, and when they found those presses, they would smash them.

The Nazis had their Gestapo out, triangulating radio transmitter sites, to smash them, and their operators.

Now, the internet has become a "threat", and it may well be suppressed, and us with it, but there is one school of thought which says that if really repressive regimes in other parts of the world have not been able to totally suppress the use of this medium as a tool of communication between ordinary persons such as ourselves in those repressive nations, that it will be very difficult for the American government to suppress it totally as well, although that school of thought admits to the possibility of this present incumbent government trying to do so, regardless of the cost of that effort.

The real issue seems to be one of "timing", as much as anything, with respect to the suppression issue, and this particular forum might just prove to be one hard bug to squash!

If you go to some certain page of this forum, you will find a list of who is in here besides us, and as I recall, one of the names on that list was Senator Charles Schumer of New York.

So, I think some kind of critical mass has been reached in here, at least, so as to afford us some continued hope for the future in here.

In "The Power of Many", there is the following quote, which I think bears scutiny in this thread:

"By themselves, blogs don't create communities any more than Usenet did or e-mail would."

"They represent, however, a great leap forward in the ease of people expressing themselves, communicating, and meeting each other on-line."

"AS A RESULT, they are a critical enabling technology for the kind of real-world impact that concerns me in this book."

"In fact, blogs are just the best current tool that supports freer personal expression, 'disintermediating' the mass-broadcast middleman that has dominated global communication in the previous century and supplementing (if not replacing) it with people-to-people communications channels that will eventually yield their own media forms ....."

end quotes

And it is this "disintermediating" that has me interested, jeffmoskin, as that is where the backlash will come from, if one is indeed to come, and for this reason:

"One of the great buzzwords of the Internet age is 'disintermediation', WHICH MEANS REMOVING THE MONOPOLY OF A MEDIA ELITE CLASS OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF INFORMATION!"

A media elite class!

And they are getting threatened by us, and in a big way, too!

But I am thinking, jeffmoskin, that we have suddenly gone past a critical point, right in here, with the start of Volume II of "Life in OUR America", and in this forum as well, which has lasted this initial period of time WITHOUT the election as a focus, as was the case with the John Kerry forum.

And so!

Whatever it is to be, I think that we shall be right there as it happens, or tries to, anyway, and I think that we will recognize attempts to suppress this medium when they are still small, and so, perhaps we can head them off at the pass!

Whatever, it is going to be an adventure, of that I am sure, and I am glad to be a particpant, to be truthful.

It is as if I have lived my life just waiting for this moment to arrive!

[quote=Livyjr,Feb 13 2005, 12:14 AM]
Isn't it really, really difficult for us who down deep want absolutely nothing less than the best for and FROM our country to read Livyjr's true accounts of the stories behind the stories?

Difficult, yes, but to not believe what we know is going on would be the height of ostrich behavior.

Example: Livyjr mentions above, some observations I made concerning the ugly and evil things President Nixon was caught doing and which led to his impeachment.

For those younger members on this forum, who are unaware of all this, just go to Google and type in Millhouse Nixon.

There is much to learn.

A.B.

[/quote]

Younger people in America are not taught about Millhouse Nixxon, A.B., according to my own surveys of younger people on that subject, BUT .....

WE, you, A.B., jeffmoskin, and me; WE WERE ALL THERE AS IT HAPPENED, and so, we saw American history being made!

In fact, we were a living part of that history!

To me, home from Viet Nam by that time, I thought that the Millhouse Nixxon business had finally pierced through this "VEIL OF HYPE" that has come to surround and characterize modern-day presidents, and especially this present incumbent, like a nimbus, or an aura!

"AMERICAN PRESIDENTS ARE NOT GODS; NOR ARE THEY GODLIKE!"

They are mortals like us!

That is why we give them ONLY four years at a time in which to be in that high office!

It is OUR high office, after all!

And now, we are back to the "CULT OF THE PRESIDENT" again, in spades!

Young people just don't know the story, A.B.; they weren't there, and the story just never got handed down!

And curious that, eh!

[/quote]



I was there too.

I just had my first born when the "Pentagon Papers" were leaked to the press, and i didn't really understand what it all meant. I didn't know who Ellsburg was, but all my friends were talking him, what he wrote and the impact on the presidency it was likely to have. Weird thing was, some how the Wtergate burglary completely escaped my attention until the hearings got started and was being televised. that's when i discovered PBS.

FYI: Last summer sometime, I purchased the PBS production of WaterGate Plus 30 DVD - I had watched the documentary when it was broadcast on KQED, but it is really a dynamite and very comprehensive historical account of all those events and all the players. Highly recommend to all.

"And what we are writing here is the story of OUR America as it has played out during our lives, with occasional reflections on the history that occurred before us which we can now access at the click of a mouse!"

jeffmoskin, here, right above, in your simple eloquence, is the truth of this matter in here; that what we are writing in here is indeed the story of OUR America, AS IT HAS PLAYED OUT, or unfolded, during our own lives, and for us, that "history" has had quite a span, starting with A.B., and then yourself in the middle, and then me, as the next generation past A.B.'s.

Wars, depressions, hopes, dreams!

The whole of the human condition it would seem, and all in the space of a lifetime!

And the miracle is this medium!

Back in October of 1988, I was at the studios of TV Channel 13 in Menands, New York, in my capacity as a county health officer, and I was talking to a TV news anchor who later that night was going to destroy my career as a public health professional, and we were talking about "control" over communications, and essentially how I had none at all, while this TV anchor had it all, and intended to use that power against me, for her benefit!

Very, very hard and callous she was, and cut-throat to boot, which is what happens to you in that business, it seems!

My exact words to her were that "he who controls communications, controls; and he who controls communications absolutely, controls absolutely"; and that is the truth, and always has been; hence the absolute control of media by absolutist governments!

In a post above, A.B. said that as people, as human beings, we like to, or have a tendency to think good of our leaders, which has us belieivng that they are operating with the good of us all in mind, which oftentimes, I think, is quite far from the truth, at least up here where I am in OUR America.

I think the same goes for people in the media who are in charge of what gets put out for dissemination, BY US, as the "news".

I think we have a tendency to believe that these people are independent from local politics, and that because of this, that they are not biased and prejudiced, when that IS IN FACT THE CASE, that they are very biased, and self-interested, which leads to and feeds the bias.

In fact, in my case, the use of the media by the local politicians to "take me out" was both skillful, by them, and necessary, so as to be able to destroy my credibility, which was my "reputation" as an engineer!

If the media say something, the populace tends to believe them, and so, the local politicians have people in the media, including radio, TV, and newspapers; "shills", in essence, who will do their personal bidding, for future rewards and favors, such as continued access to the "inside" story, and so, these media sources remain quite tractable, to them, the local politicians, and so can be "used" to put out complete falsehoods as "news" stories.

And at that time, 1988, their control of the media where I live was literally absolute!

And that was still the case in 2001 when the "psychiatric takedown" attempt went down!

Not one media outlet in my area would say a word about it!

As if it had never happened!

And that is a necessary element for tyrranical and repressive governments to exist; this absolute lock on what can get disseminated at all in the local community, especially when it would be news, such as this "psychiatric takedown" of a well-known and respected public health engineer, by the same "authorities" who this engineer had been besting in state supreme court over issues of corruption in the "authorities".

SO!

Quite a turn-around in fortunes, here, jeffmoskin, is my thought, anyway, and without those experiences, I might not have anything at all to say in here, or more importantly, a compelling reason to be coming in here to say anything at all, now that the elections are indeed over.

In just that short amount of time, from 1988 to the present, the whole concept of "communications" has literally been turned on its ear, and to be very truthful, to me, it is way past time.

DISINTERMEDIATION!

Cutting out the elite class that has been controlling the dissemination of information, here in OUR America!

And I am for that!

Hence this thread!

Volume II!

Lfe in OUR America!

First of all, CeilidhSeisuns, welcome, for many reasons, part of which is your name, which takes me back to many wonderful months in beautiful County Clare, and the west coast generally, of Ireland, and the wild Celtic music in wee places like Doolin!

And then, thank you for your recollections on this period of time; and I hope we hear more of the same from you from time to time, in here, where we are always on the subject of history, here in OUR America, and out there in the world as well, and how we as individuals have perceived that "history", or have been affected by it, as you relate above in your own case with respect to the Watergate Break-in, and exactly who Daniel Ellsburg really was, because in truth, I did not know, either, at first!

For me, this time in OUR history, this "Watergate" time, a time we actually lived through, was a real watershed period, or so I thought, and many times since, it is as if this time in our history has somehow been erased, which I don't think is healthy.

And what you talk about above, in your post, strikes me as the same kind of "awakening" process that I personally went through with respect to American "politics", back in that same time!

SO!

You are now in here with the "old-timers" who have memory spans of more than ten or fifteen seconds!

Interesting!

Very, very interesting!

And very, very good to boot!

After all, it does take a community ..........

Welcome to the...the...


ROUNDTABLE. I think we have enough people here to call it a roundtable. I'll go put on some coffee.


I think this is due to the "Walter Cronkite Factor." A person of unassailable integrity; an older person; a father figure perhaps.

"And that's the way it is."

And who could disagree.

A good antidote for this is the movie "Broadcast News," in which news director Holly Hunter explains that she simply has to talk into her microphone and her words will travel into "blow-dried talking head" William Hurt's ear and come out of his mouth on air.

I think this explains the unfortunate "evolution" of TV news.

Another antidote: My wife and I watched "Network" last week. What a piece of work - how prescient!!!

News as Entertainment - what a concept. And done in 1976. Paddy Chayesfsky. One of the very best.

Now we have FoxNews (faux news). News as Propaganda. What a concept. Except its origins are more sinister - Joseph Goebbels.

BUMP

And I would say, jeffmoskin, that we are still the original "Life in OUR America", except we are the Volume II, now, having filled up some seventy pages in Volume I.

We have endured!

And yes, in many ways, this could well be a kind of "roundtable" in here, so ...

Mine is black, no sugar!

Just kidding!

And as for me, I would say "war is a dangerous place", because war is an unpredictable place, or rather, "outcomes" in war, or as a result of war, just might not be what you want or need them to be, as this next news item hints at:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Iraq winners more than U.S. bargained for - Many in newly elected government are closely allied with Iran"

ANALYSIS By Robin Wright

Updated: 10:49 p.m. ET Feb. 13, 2005

When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago this month, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy — potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions.

But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base — and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door.

It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy — $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.

Today, the White House heralded the election and credited the U.S. role.

In a statement, President Bush praised Iraqis "for defying terrorist threats and setting their country on the path of democracy and freedom."

"And I congratulate every candidate who stood for election and those who will take office once the results are certified."

Close ties to Iran

Yet the top two winning parties — which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president — are Iran's closest allies in Iraq.

Thousands of members of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite-dominated slate that won almost half of the 8.5 million votes and will name the prime minister, spent decades in exile in Iran.

Most of the militia members in its largest faction were trained in Shiite-dominated Iran.

And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran, which long served as its economic and political lifeline.

"This is a government that will have very good relations with Iran."

"The Kurdish victory reinforces this conclusion."

"Talabani is very close to Tehran," said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert on Iraq.

"In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the United States was hoping for."

Added Rami Khouri, Arab analyst and editor of Beirut's Daily Star, "The idea that the United States would get a quick, stable, prosperous, pro-American and pro-Israel Iraq has not happened."

"Most of the neoconservative assumptions about what would happen have proven false."

Election may herald new paradigm

The results have long-term implications.

For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations played Baghdad and Tehran off each other to ensure neither became a regional giant threatening or dominant over U.S. allies, notably Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf sheikdoms.

But now, Cole said, Iraq and Iran are likely to take similar positions on many issues, from oil prices to U.S. policy on Iran.

"If the United States had decided three years ago to bomb Iran, it would have produced joy in Baghdad," he added.

"Now it might produce strong protests from Baghdad."

Conversely, the Iraqi secular democrats backed most strongly by the Bush administration lost big.

During his State of the Union Address last year, President Bush invited Adnan Pachachi, a longtime Sunni politician and then-president of the Iraqi Governing Council, to sit with first lady Laura Bush.

Pachachi's party fared so poorly in the election that it won no seats in the national assembly.

What next for Allawi?

And current Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, backed by the CIA during his years in exile and handpicked by U.S. and U.N. officials to lead the interim government, came in third.

He addressed a joint session of Congress last September, a rare honor reserved for heads of state of the closest U.S. allies.

But now, U.S. hopes that Allawi will tally enough votes to vie as a compromise candidate and continue his leadership are unrealistic, analysts say.

"The big losers in this election are the liberals," said Stanford University's Larry Diamond, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation government.

"The fact that three-quarters of the national assembly seats have gone to just two [out of 111] slates is a worrisome trend."

"Unless the ruling coalition reaches out to broaden itself to include all groups, the insurgency will continue — and may gain ground."

Adel Abdul Mahdi, who is a leading contender to be prime minister, reiterated today that the new government does not want to emulate Iran.

"We don't want either a Shiite government or an Islamic government," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"Now we are working for a democratic government."

"This is our choice."

And a senior State Department official said today that the 48 percent vote won by the Shiite slate deprives it of an outright majority.

"If it had been higher, the slate would be seen with a lot more trepidation," he said on the condition of anonymity because of department rules.

Unclear fault line between neighbors

U.S. and regional analysts agree that Iraq is not likely to become an Iranian surrogate.

Iraq's Arabs and Iran's Persians have a long and rocky history.

During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Iraq's Shiite troops did not defect to Iran.

"There's the assumption that the new government will be close to Iran or influenced by Iran."

"That's a strong and reasonable assumption," Khouri said.

"But I don't think anyone knows — including Grand Ayatollah [Ali] Sistani — where the fault line is between Shiite religious identity and Iraqi national identity."

Iranian-born Sistani is now Iraq's top cleric — and the leader who pressed for elections when Washington favored a caucus system to pick a government.

His aides have also rejected Iran's theocracy as a model, although the Shiite slate is expected to press for Islamic law to be incorporated in the new constitution.

For now, the United States appears prepared to accept the results — in large part because it has no choice.

But the results were announced at a time when the United States faces mounting tensions with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, support for extremism and human rights violations.

On her first trip abroad this month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran's behavior was "something to be loathed" and charged that the "unelected mullahs" are not good for Iran or the region.

One of the biggest questions, analysts say, is whether Iraq's democratic election will make it easier — or harder — to pressure Iran.

end quotes

SO?

Another in a long list of "cock-ups" by the Bush Co.'s?

Stay tuned!

Live!

Late-breaking!

Here, in OUR America!

History!

Always history; and if the Bush Co.'s knew any, at all, history, that is; what a world it just might be!

But they do not!

In fact, outside of raw power, and arrogance, the Bush Co.'s do not seem to know doodly-squat, and that is to OUR detriment, here, in OUR America, because now, the results of the Bush Co. Holy War in Iraq will be that much harder to undo, since it by the hand of the Bush Co.'s that things in Iraq have reached this latest turn in the road described above in this Washington Post article that I cite from in here!

Back before the elections, I was posting on the John Kerry site, and one news article that I had "captured" stated therein an opinion by a Bush Co. that they did not need to know history, as they were in fact the source of history itself, and of course, that reply caused me to think if such a case in our crowded world could ever be so, that there could be one fiddle-player, such as George W. Bush, and everyone else would be a dancer to his tune!

Unrealistic, and arrogant, and hubristic, is what I thought then, and with the publication of this above news article, I think my thoughts back then were somewhat on the mark!

"Most of the neoconservative assumptions about what would happen have proven false!"

SO?

WHO ARE THESE NEW CONS, and why are they in charge of foreign policy in OUR America?

And how did this happen?

And when?

Who is this Billy Kristol, and this Paul Wolfowitz?

WHERE does their power over George W. Bush come from, especially this Billy Kristol character?

Does anyone know?

And should we know?

After all, THEY now have the helm of the ship of state, here in OUR America!

SO?

Can they steer OUR ship?

Can they read a map?

Can they navigate?

Questions for OUR times!

Here, in OUR America!

Synchronicity, jeffmoskin!

Just the other day, a young person that I know called me from Philadelphia to ask me what I knew about Joseph Goebbels, in the same type of context in which you bring up his name above here!

Interesting, indeed, and so, this young person and I had quite a chat, almost along these same lines as you are discussing above, jeffmoskin!

Amazing parallels!

And I don't think it is necessarily coincidence!

I believe that Karl Rove is quite a student of this Mr. Goebblels, and has adopted his methodology, which is what that young person was calling me about the other night, to see if such a thing could be possible!

My answer was, of course, because that stuff with Goebbels was long enough ago now that it is not known or thought of by a majority of Americans alive today!

In fact, if it were not for "oldsters" like you and A.B., likely that name would never get mentioned "out loud", either in here, or out there, in OUR America!

And hence, Karl Rove has his safety shield, which is the gross ignorance of those that he is manipulating!

How slick!

How elegant!

AND IT WORKS!

or Ancient Chinese Sayings, like:

Be Careful What You Wish For - You Could Get It.

Yes, indeed, jeffmoskin!

And here, I am struck by what an inept, knee-jerk crowd we really have down there in Washington, D.C., with this Bush Co. crowd that is now in power down there!

Earlier today, I was thinking of Mr. Dwight David Eisenhower, and his views on war, when he was president!

What a counter-point he was to this crowd!

But, of course, Eisenhower had actually seen war, and not just a movie or two about it, like the Bush Co., and when Eisenhower saw real war, and not just the movie of it, I believe that he was sober, as well, and I think that may have made quite a difference in his outlook on it, war, that is; versus this inept Bush Co. crowd's "outlook", if jerking your knees in reaction to what is going on in the world around you can be called an "outlook".

And speaking of those inept, knee-jerkers down there in Washington. D.C. who have given us one very expensive and largely botched-up HOLY WAR in the Middle East, here is another view of what they are now going to be jerking their knees to, over there in Iraq in the next weeks and months, and likely years, for us, anyway:

Top Stories - The Christian Science Monitor

"Shiite Islamists to shape new Iraq"

Mon Feb 14, 9:33 AM ET

The election gave a Shiite Islamist slate more than 47 percent, a Kurdish alliance 25 percent, and Allawi's list 14 percent.

By Dan Murphy, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD - A slate packed with Shiite politicians who want Islam to govern much of Iraqi life rolled to victory in the country's first free election in 50 years.

Its members will take almost half the seats in a 275-member national assembly that will write a new constitution.

The results of the Jan. 30 vote, released Sunday, confirm a profound political shift, with Iraq's majority Shiite Arabs - treated as second-class citizens under Saddam Hussein - finally translating their numerical weight into political power.

But where Iraq's transformation will lead remains uncertain.

In addition to confirming the Shiite Arab dominance, the results showed abysmal turnout among the Sunni Arab minority who profited under Mr. Hussein and have driven the war against the US-led coalition and the interim government.

That leaves a Shiite-led government backed by the US military squaring off against a Sunni Arab-led insurgency that could cause Iraq's burgeoning civil strife to deepen.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant who leads the most extreme fringe of Iraq's diverse and decentralized insurgency, has repeatedly called for war with Iraq's Shiites.

Many Iraqi Shiites say they're hoping the new government will hit the insurgents hard once it takes power and controls positions in the Interior Ministry and the emerging Iraqi military.

"The new government has to be a lot tougher, fight force with more force,'' says Uday Allawi, a young policeman and Shiite in Baghdad.

Two other Iraqi policemen say the use of torture against captured Sunni insurgents has become routine.

Nagem Mohammed, a Shiite woman who works in a bookshop in central Baghdad, also wants a tough line.

"If the government is strong, not like Saddam, but strong, things will get better,'' she says.

"They will control the security situation by not showing any mercy to the insurgents, even if they have to hang them."

Coming in second behind the religious Shiites' United Iraqi Alliance List (UIA), which will hold about 130 seats in the assembly, was an ethnic Kurdish list that took about 26 percent, or 70, of the seats.

The party of the secular Shiite and US favorite Iyad Allawi came a distant third, with about 14 percent, or 38 seats.

The UIA is led by the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Shiite parties that have ties to Iran and would like Islam to play a much bigger role in the country's government.

A turnout of 8.45 million votes - or about 59 percent turnout of 14.2 million eligible voters, according to new figures given Sunday - was low for a transitional election, and reflected wartime conditions and a boycott by many Sunnis.

In elections surveyed by the Monitor that marked a shift from dictatorship to democracy and were sometimes held under war conditions over the past 15 years, turnout has averaged 77 percent.

Only Bosnia's parliamentary elections of 1996, which were boycotted by many Serbs, had lower turnout, with just 46 percent.

In the last transitional election, in Afghanistan, turnout was 80 percent.

Since the Iraqi election, violence - much of it with sectarian overtones - has swept back across this troubled country, emphasizing the tough road that lies ahead for the US and Iraq's new leaders.

In the past week, unarmed Shiite Arabs have been a particular target of insurgent attacks, with deadly bomb blasts outside two Shiite mosques, a hospital in the mostly Shiite town of Musayyib, and an armed raid on a Baghdad bakery.

In all, at least 100 civilians were killed in attacks during the week.

The violence has cast a pall over what is otherwise a joyful day for millions of Iraqis, with most residents of Baghdad rushing to get home before nightfall rather than staying out to celebrate the results.

US officials had hoped Sunni voters would defy insurgents and turn out in large numbers to vote, thereby sending a message to fighters that they're in a tiny minority.

But most Sunni Arabs did not go to the polls.

In the overwhelmingly Sunni Anbar province, only 2 percent of adults voted.

In largely Sunni Salahuddin, Hussein's home province, just 32 percent voted.

Though Allawi's list has some Sunni Arabs on it, the two Sunni parties that didn't boycott the election did poorly, and the assembly will have far fewer Sunni Arabs than their 20 percent share of the population would warrant.

The election list of Sunni interim President Ghazi Al-Yawar won about five seats, while the list of Adnan Al-Pachachi, a former top diplomat and exile, failed to win a single seat.

While Sunni Arab groups are fighting for a variety of reasons, they are bound by the common expectation that their once-privileged position is coming to an end.

Shiite leaders have repeatedly offered olive branches to Sunni groups with ties to the insurgency, offering them a say in the writing of the constitution, whatever the election returns.

But now they will be tested by the demands of the people who have brought them to power.

"I think the situation is going to get worse from here,'' says Hodayer Abbas, who repairs air conditioners in Baghdad.

"I'm not sure how the government should solve the problems, but they shouldn't give roles in the government to the fighters."

"They're murderers and that shouldn't be rewarded."

Hussein routinely used vicious collective punishment against Shiite and Kurdish communities, both of whom defied his government.

Now these two groups hold most of the cards in parliament.

But with no party holding the two-thirds of parliament needed to control the government, coalitions will have to be made.

There are vast differences between the religious Shiites and the secular leaning Kurds, who want to maintain the de facto autonomy they won in the 1990s thanks to the US-patrolled no-fly zone that protected them from the Iraqi Army.

The UIA says it wants either Ibrahim Jaafari of the Dawa Party or Adel Abdul Mahdi of SCIRI to be Iraq's next prime minister.

The Kurds say they want Jalal Talabani, a veteran Kurdish leader, to be made president.

While it's possible the two sides will come to an arrangement, the Kurds also want to incorporate Kirkuk, the northern city that serves as a hub for Iraqi oil production, into their region, something that the main Shiite parties oppose.

Mr. Allawi has been scrambling to protect his position, flying to the Kurdish area this week to form an alliance.

His secular leaning leaves him with more in common with the Kurds than the religious Shiites, but the two groups together still have fewer seats than the UIA.

And speaking of ineptness by the Bush Co.'s, separate and apart from the "knee-jerking", it would seem that it is the talk of the town these days, down there in Washington, D.C., but really, who should be surprised?

Politics - AFP

"Iraq reconstruction scandalous: Democrats"

21 minutes ago

WASHINGTON(AFP) - The Bush administration was accused of allowing the US rebuilding of Iraq to become as chaotic as the Wild West, of protecting a US contractor accused of fraud and of censorship.

Senator Harry Reid, head of the opposition Democrats in the US Senate, was visibly angry over accounts of incompetence and corruption from former staff of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq.

"This is a scandal," said a visibly angry Reid.

"We are close to 24 months into this conflict with Iraq, and the administration (of US President George W. Bush) still can't seem to get it right," he said.

Reid spoke during hearings in Congress into the management of the CPA's multi-billion dollar reconstruction program.

In the hearings, civilians compared CPA operations to the Wild West, saying bags full of cash were tossed freely about, at times as footballs.

Franklin Willis, who supervised aviation for the CPA in late 2003, accused the organization of "poor execution" and called it "naive."

He said that millions of dollars in 100-dollar bills stored in the basement of the CPA offices were casually distributed to favored contractors with little accounting discipline.

Another witness accused the government of hampering an investigation into alleged fraud by US-based Custer Battles, which had contracts worth as much as 100 million dollars in Iraq for airport security and other jobs.

Custer Battles was accused of repainting old airport equipment and billing the CPA for new equipment, among other schemes.

"We estimate that the government's total losses are tens of millions of dollars," said lawyer Alan Grayson, who represents former employees of the company.

"Yet for more than a year, the Bush administration has done nothing to recover these ill-gotten gains," Grayson said.

Don North, a journalist hired by the CPA to create a new independent Iraqi television station, said he was scandalized by the censorship imposed on the operation.

Instead of covering stories of consequence to Iraqis, the station had to cover CPA publicity events, North said.

"It resulted in our newscasts appearing to be a laundry list of CPA activities," said North, who formerly worked with leading US television networks.

"I left after four months of frustrations," he said.

And what a joke this all is!

While this Democratic Senator is taking a tally of how the Bush Co.'s have mismanaged and allegedly misspent millions already in Iraq, the head Bush Co. himself is coming in and asking for BILLIONS MORE!

And in the meantime, we, of course, are to tighten up OUR belts, because not only do we have to pay for this multi-million dollar mismangement, we also have to go without, ourselves, so that the Bush Co. will have more money, OF OURS, to mismanage, and misspend!

How droll!

How very droll, indeed!

White House - AP

"Bush Wants $82B More for Iraq, Afghan Costs"

36 minutes ago

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday urged Congress to approve quickly his request for $82 billion to cover the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a myriad of other internationally related expenses, such as training Iraqi security forces, aiding tsunami victims and helping military forces in other nations.

"The majority of this request will ensure that our troops continue to get what they need to protect themselves and complete their mission,'" Bush said in a statement released before the White House officially sent the supplemental budget request to Capitol Hill.

"It also provides for the continued pursuit of al-Qaida and other terrorist elements in Afghanistan and elsewhere," the president said.

"I urge the Congress to move quickly so our troops and diplomats have the tools they need to succeed."

Included in the request is $74.9 billion for the Defense Department.

About $5 billion is for reorganizing Army divisions and brigades and $5.7 billion for training and equipping Iraqi military and police, according to a federal official familiar with the request.

The remaining money in the supplemental request includes:

_ $2.242 billion to counter drugs, pay for security, and support democracy and reconstruction in Afghanistan.

_ $950 million to help areas affected by the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean.

_ $660 million for construction of a U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

_ $400 million to reward nations that have taken political and economic risks to join the U.S.-led coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

_ $242 million for the Darfur region of western Sudan where a two-year civil conflict has left tens of thousands of people dead and more than 2 million displaced.

_ $200 million in education and border security aid for the Palestinians.

_ $200 million for economic and military aid in Jordan.

_ $150 million in military aid for Pakistan.

_ $100 million for southern Sudan where a treaty recently was signed to end a 22-year civil war.

_ $60 million for Ukraine, which recently elected Viktor Yushchenko president.

In a written statement on this issue earlier, Bush had said the special appropriation would support U.S. troops and help the United States "stand with the Iraqi people and against the terrorists trying desperately to block democracy and the advance of human rights."

The Army wants to use the $5 billion to convert 33 brigades and regiments — about 30 of which are organized into 10 divisions — into a force of 43 to 48 brigades that would operate more independently.

"Instead of having the brigade communicate with their divisions and the divisions communicate with their higher-ups, all 43 to 48 would be allowed to communicate with higher-ups and operate more or less independently," said Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Studies.

Last week, Bush submitted an overall $2.5 trillion budget for fiscal 2006.

That document called for restraining spending across a wide swath of government programs from popular farm subsidies to poor people's health programs.

Spending on the military, the biggest part of discretionary spending, would rise by 4.8 percent in 2006 to $419.3 billion.

The money requested for the military did not include the additional $82 billion, but administration officials point out that while it was not in the 2006 budget request, the $82 billion for ongoing military expenses in Iraq and the Middle East was built into the administration's deficit projections.

Still, the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 35 moderate and conservative Democrats, known as fiscal and defense hawks, are criticizing the administration for using the supplemental budget request to ask Congress for more money to finance the war.

Supplemental budget requests often don't receive as much scrutiny and often don't include the same amount of detail as regular budget requests.

"The Blue Dog Coalition recognizes that we must support our troops, but the Congress cannot continue to write blank checks," the group said in a statement.

Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer.

Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, the new request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion.

That includes $25 billion already provided for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.

And pardon me here, for going back into Volume I of "Life in OUR America" to retrieve this following story, but I have done so, as there is an update on it to follow, and it ties directly into this alleged mismanagement of OUR tax dollars by the Bush Co.'s, which seems to be for the express purpose of lining the pockets of the Bush Co.'s political supporters, at OUR expense:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Long fall for Pentagon star - Druyun doled out favors by the millions"

By Renae Merle, Washington Post

Updated: 4:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2004

WASHINGTON - In the macho world of the Pentagon, Darleen A. Druyun was rare: a woman who had scaled the heights of power, controlled billions of dollars in weapons programs and could punish or reward global corporations and the men who ran them.

Once the most feared woman in the world of military contracting, Druyun, 57, helped direct the Air Force's $30 billion procurement budget — nearly three times the size of the Army's.

She was at the peak of her power as a top Air Force weapons buyer in 1999 when she scolded leaders of Lockheed Martin Corp., the world's largest defense contractor, for some of its work on satellites and rockets.

Her tone was blunt: One program had "pitiful" software and a company proposal had a "crappy design."

The incident contributed to the early retirement of one Lockheed executive and the company rushed to address Druyun's concerns, according to several people familiar with the situation.

But now it is Druyun who has fallen from grace.

In April, she pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge for negotiating for a job with Boeing Co. while still supervising the company's work for the Air Force.

Last month she stunned military and industry leaders by admitting that she gave Boeing preferential treatment for years before taking a job with the company.

The Pentagon announced last week that because of Druyun's illegal behavior it has begun investigations into all of her contracting-related actions during her nine years as the Air Force's deputy acquisition chief.

The Defense Department also began the largest review of how it buys weapons since the investigation of influence peddling in the 1980s known as Operation Ill Wind.

The fallout could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars as companies unfairly ruled out of contracts seek restitution for the costs they incurred during the bidding process.

Since she was sentenced to nine months in prison, a portrait of Druyun has emerged from court papers and interviews with her associates of a woman who acquired power beyond her status at the Air Force then walked over subordinates, humbled industry executives and sought personal advantage at government expense.

Druyun is an imposing figure with a sharp — and sometimes vulgar — tongue, who was right at home in the male-dominated Pentagon world.

Her renown as a tough government negotiator and stickler for the rules encouraged her superiors to rely on her judgment, according to industry insiders.

For nearly 40 percent of her time at the Pentagon she had no supervisor at all.

Her rise to power coincided with a government-wide push to build closer relationships with contractors as partners.

"I was surprised that someone who was around [during the Ill Wind investigation] would be in essence doing the same things that Ill Wind was all about," said Joseph J. Aronica, the lead prosecutor in that investigation, now a lawyer with Duane Morris LLP.

"I guess these things in a way are cyclical."

"She may have thought no one was looking any more."

Druyun did not respond to letters and could not be reached by telephone to comment on this article.

Her lawyer declined comment through his secretary.

Druyun began her career in government work in 1970 when she landed a job as an Air Force contractor negotiator at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia.

Her father, who had worked at the base for 40 years, was "instrumental" in getting her the job, according to court documents.

Druyun's husband, William S. Druyun, is a retired Air Force official who was a mid-level manager at Falls Church-based General Dynamics Corp. before retiring in September.

For the next 20 years, she bounced between the Air Force, the Office of Management and Budget and NASA before being named the Air Force's deputy acquisition chief, a position she would hold until her retirement in November 2002.

Controversy begins early

But no sooner had she climbed the heights of Air Force procurement than she became involved in a controversy over work she had done three years before.

She and four other Air Force officials were accused by Pentagon inspector general of improperly funneling $349 million to McDonnell Douglas Corp. in 1990 to keep the C-17 transport aircraft program on track.

After a separate Air Force investigation found no wrongdoing, Defense Secretary Les Aspin dismissed one general and disciplined three others, saying the program was poorly managed.

Druyun was cleared.

Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff at the time, said he petitioned Aspin on Druyun's behalf.

"I thought she was a strong person, giving strong leadership in the acquisition community, so if I was going to save one person I thought" it should be Druyun, said McPeak, who retired in 1994 and is now president of an aerospace consulting firm.

"She was the one who would come into my office and tell me I was wrong about something. ... She had the stomach to not be a yes-woman."

Druyun then reinvented herself as a reformer, developing "Lightning Bolt" initiatives that aimed to make Air Force weapons procurement more efficient and stressed the importance of a company's past performance in awarding new contracts.

The Air Force said the program saved $20 billion.

The fortunes of defense contractors rested on Druyun's decisions on competitions, her policy decrees and her awards of bonuses.

In 1999, she emerged as the Pentagon's top advocate of the F/A-22, a boon to Lockheed, the fighter jet's manufacturer.

In 2001, Druyun eliminated Raytheon Co. from a $2.5 billion competition to build the small-diameter bomb, surprising industry handicappers and realigning the competitive landscape.

An official at Druyun's level would not normally decide the outcome of as many competitions as she did or get involved in the nitty-gritty of contract negotiations, according to people in the industry.

Those tasks were left to underlings who made the decisions themselves or offered their recommendations.

"Once in a blue moon there will be a mess where you can't resolve an issue and the issue will float up the chain of command," said John W. Douglas, the former assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition.

Druyun, however, actively discouraged her staff from making recommendations, according to a former defense official who worked with her.

"She began accreting this authority up to her," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigations.

"She would say, 'Don't send it up with a recommendation, just send it up with information.'"

The power creep did not escape the notice of her superiors.

In one or two cases, "I was surprised she was getting involved, but they were large [contracts] and ... she was a hands-on kind of person," said Jacques Gansler, the Pentagon's acquisition chief from 1997 to 2001.

"People above and around her in the Air Force should have been overseeing her."

Abrasive side

The rough edges of Druyun's personality also emerged.

Staff members who seemed unprepared or provided Druyun with inadequate or faulty information would be frozen out of later meetings, according to government and industry officials who worked with her.

"Those who have feared going to see the 'Dragon Lady' only feared if they didn't have their act together, or were trying to 'cover' an error," retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Lawrence A. Mitchell said in a letter of support included in court records.

"She justifiably had no time for 'BS-ers' or liars."

Gradually, Druyun's allegiances began to shift as her personal and professional lives became entangled.

When her daughter's fiance, Michael McKee, was looking for a job in 2000, she contacted a longtime Boeing associate, Michael M. Sears, the company's chief financial officer, for help, according to court records.

McKee was hired for a position in St. Louis.

Druyun also helped her daughter, Heather, land a job at Boeing two months later — a position created for her, the records show.

After years fostering a reputation as the defense contractors' toughest adversary, Druyun felt indebted to Boeing.

She then made a series of decisions that were rooted in her sense of gratitude, she told the court.

In 2000, she agreed to increase the size of a Boeing contract for C-17 transport planes by $412 million.

Two years later, she restructured the company's program to modernize 18 NATO planes used as airborne command posts, and approved a $100 million payment.

In 2001, Druyun picked Boeing over Lockheed to upgrade the avionics on C-130 transport planes.

The decision stunned industry analysts because Lockheed had built the planes and was considered the most probable choice to modernize them.

Industry analysts pointed to the competition as proof that Boeing's strategy to apply commercial technology to the military sector was working and that Lockheed was failing to capture the Air Force's imagination.

But Druyun soon had a new boss: Marvin R. Sambur, who managed the $1.5 billion defense business of ITT Industries Inc., was appointed Air Force acquisition chief in late 2001.

Sambur said he was surprised to learn that Druyun, not her subordinates, was deciding the outcome of competitions and contract bonuses, which often made up a company's profit margin.

Druyun also hoarded information and kept the decision-making process secret, he said in an interview.

He felt, Sambur said, like summer help.

"At the beginning when I came in here, a lot of people in the meetings would look to her to see if she agreed with what I had to say," Sambur said.

"The recognition was ... she's going to be here for a long time and I may be like the other acquisition people who stayed here for a relatively short period of time or didn't have the type of background necessary to run this."

Sambur said he began dismantling Druyun's power.

First, he stripped her of the ability to decide competitions, then took away her authority to negotiate final contract terms or change requirements.

With her authority diminished, Druyun told Sambur that she intended to retire.

Federal regulations restricted what kind of job Druyun, now the civilian equivalent of a lieutenant general, could take in the defense industry, but she soon forged a handshake agreement to join the executive ranks of Lockheed, the Pentagon's largest contractor.

Meanwhile, Druyun also met with Lockheed's largest rival, Boeing, about a job, according to court documents.

She initially used her daughter Heather as intermediary.

In e-mails to Sears, Heather said that her mother would consider moving out of Washington but insisted on a position with considerable responsibility.

Druyun soon reneged on her agreement with Lockheed, according to court records, and accepted a position at Boeing as a vice president.

She had barely moved in when she became the center of controversy again.

In her final months at the Pentagon, Druyun was the chief negotiator of a $20 billion program to lease, then purchase, Boeing 767s converted into refueling tankers.

The proposal had attracted the attention of the Senate Commerce Committee chairman, John McCain (R-Ariz.), who called the proposal a welfare program for Boeing and criticized Sambur and other Air Force officials for their handling of the deal.

Critics said it was more than a coincidence that Druyun, the chief Air Force negotiator, would take a $250,000-a-year job with Boeing.

Boeing publicly defended the tanker proposal and its employment of Druyun, but also hired an outside law firm to investigate the hiring.

The firm found that the employment talks had occurred while Druyun was overseeing Boeing contracts — a violation of federal law.

Druyun was fired and pleaded guilty, sparing prosecution of her daughter, who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Sears, who negotiated Druyun's employment, is scheduled to plead guilty on Monday.

Druyun would still not reveal the entire truth for several months — and only then after failing two polygraph tests.

After initially admitting only to a technical violation — holding improper employment discussions — she acknowledged years of preferential treatment of Boeing.

She agreed to a higher price on the tanker deal as a "parting gift" to the firm, she told the court.

"Getting to the truth of matters can sometimes be difficult," Druyun's lawyer, John M. Dowd, told the judge before she was sentenced.

"There is no denying [Darleen] made a serious mistake and there is no denying she had difficulty coming to grips with certain matters."

And here is that follow-up!

And keep in mind that when this above news article says "the fallout (from the Druyn affair) could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars as companies unfairly ruled out of contracts seek restitution for the costs they incurred during the bidding process", it really means US, as we are the government, and it is us!

And every dollar that the government has, IS OURS, and every dollar it spends, COSTS US!

Outside of us, there is no government!

SO!

IT IS US WHO ARE BEING ROBBED HERE!

YOU and ME!

After all, who else is there to rob?

White House - AP Cabinet & State

"More Air Force Contracts to Be Probed"

Mon Feb 14, 2:25 PM ET

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is investigating eight additional Air Force contracts to determine whether they were manipulated or influenced illegally by Darleen Druyun, a former Air Force official who was convicted last year of giving Boeing Co. special treatment on a tanker lease deal.

The eight contracts range in value from $42 million to $1.5 billion and their total value is about $3 billion, according to a summary provided by the Pentagon on Monday.

Michael Wynne, the acting chief of Pentagon acquisition programs, told reporters that the eight contracts were identified as suspicious from among 407 reviewed by a team of military and civilian contracting experts.

They referred the eight to the Pentagon's inspector general.

The eight are in addition to seven others that already are being investigated.

At least four of the eight contracts involve Boeing.

Wynne stressed that it is not yet clear that any of the additional eight have been tainted.

They were picked for further investigation because they "seemed to be out of the normal process."

The review and investigations are an outgrowth of revelations about Druyun's handling of the multibillion-dollar deal with Boeing that would have allowed the Air Force to lease a fleet of new aerial refueling aircraft.

Congress eventually killed the deal because of Druyun's involvement.

Druyun was an Air Force acquisition executive who later was hired by Boeing as a top executive.

Druyun pleaded guilty last year and is serving nine months in federal prison.

Boeing's former chief financial officer, Michael Sears, has also pleaded guilty for his role in hiring Druyun.

He is scheduled to be sentenced on Friday.

Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said Monday that the firm would continue to cooperate with the government to resolve any outstanding questions.

"We'll continue to cooperate as these go to the IG and we'll be responsive to every request for information from DoD."

"If any problems are found, we've got both the will and the processes to fix them," Beck said.

The eight contracts that were referred for further investigation were awarded between 1998 and 2002, Wynne said.

The contractors involved are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Andersen Consulting, Systems & Electronics Inc., and Pemco.

The biggest was a $1.5 billion award to a Boeing-Pemco team in 2000-01 for depot maintenance for the Air Force's KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft.

Wynne said the reviews and investigations have not identified any other Air Force acquisition executive, besides Druyun, who acted improperly or illegally in the contracting process.

Meanwhile, two separate federal criminal investigations into Boeing in Los Angeles and Virginia were expected to end soon without more indictments, government and industry sources told the Los Angeles Times.

"It appears what we had here was a fairly straightforward two-person conspiracy," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst for the Lexington Institute in Virginia with close ties to Pentagon investigators.

"There were no wider ramifications."

The company has maintained that any ethical violations were confined to Sears and Druyun.

Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher told analysts a week ago that he believed the investigations "now are all completed."

By the end of this month, he said, Boeing will "be able to move forward in settling a bunch of these issues."

end quotes

And we will all be watching!

DISINTERMEDIATION in action, here, in OUR America!

From USA Today, letters to the editor:

"Military, sporting events don't mix"

There has been a lot of focus on the great commercials shown during the Super Bowl.

But one commercial we don't hear much comment about is the patriotic message of war during the game.

We saw marching soldiers, fighter jets, a reading of the Declaration of Independence and a fireworks display during Paul McCartney's performance of Live and Let Die.

Combining the excitement of football fans with our country's military efforts seems inappropriate.

The mixture reminded me of Adolf Hitler's use of the Olympics and rallies at Nuremberg to whip up support for nationalism, militarization and wars of aggression.

One might get the impression from watching the game that Americans are unanimously in support of President Bush's war against Iraq.

But let's not forget that many Americans are opposed to the war and any further unilateral military aggression.

Americans must not degenerate into a mindless mob mentality, cheering for wars under the banner of patriotism.

Let sporting events be sporting events, not war commercials.

Robert E. Griffin

Forty Fort, Pa.

I had to go to a funeral this morning, and as I was sitting in church during the funeral mass, I noticed that the priest said several times that "we are people of faith!"

With emphasis on that phrase, "people of faith"!

And I really had to wonder, when he said that, about what he actually was meaning by this phrase "we are people of faith", as I have never heard that phrase used in such a peculiar manner in a church before this time!

Specifically, WHO IS NOT?

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WITHOUT FAITH, I wonder?

That is part of what went through my mind, anyway, when the priest said his words about "us", presumably including me, but maybe not!

Maybe his message was only for his flock, of which I am not a member, since I am not affiliated with that church in any way, shape, or manner!

SO?

Maybe I am one of these alleged people without faith, then, in the eyes of this particular priest.

People of faith!

Flung like a "war cry", in a sense, at least to me!

"People of faith, rise up, destroy the unbelievers!"

And NO, this was not a Muslim funeral service, lest someone take my meaning wrong here!

This in fact was a Catholic Church, and those words were spoken by a priest of the Catholics.

When I heard these words, George W. Bush and the Republican Party actually popped into my head, as well!

"People of faith!"

Hhhhmmmmm!

Can't escape politics and political messages anywhere, it seems, these days, even at a funeral mass!

SO?

I wonder if they now show patriotic commericals in the churchs at half-time of the Bingo Games?

And if Karl Rove and the Bush Co. "Office of Strategic Initiatives" have their way, I just bet they do!

Peace!

Who needs it?

Who wants it?

It's just plain bad for the economy!

SO!

Thump them tubs, cry the war cries, let slip the dogs of war!

The Bush Co's buddies need the geetus, after all, and it is OUR patriotic duty to open OUR pockets and give them all we have got!

And who better to drive that message home but the local parish priest!

Trust versus faith!

An interesting proposition, indeed!

And here I am just coming back from checking my e-mail, where I just deleted a message that said "do not delete".

As I began to scroll down through the message, it began by listing a number of very petty complaints that people might be making these days, like being upset if you are cut off in traffic, etc.

Then it began to show a bunch of soldiers in Iraq sleeping in the mud, etc.

Then it concluded with a message to us over here to not be such cry-babies, and whiners, and instead, to be very thankful to these soldiers sleeping in the mud in Iraq, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLEGEDLY KEEPING US SAFE TO BE CRY-BABIES, OVER HERE.

Well, sorry, but I just don't buy into this, at all, and I told the sender of this e-mail so, in a reply!

What I said exactly was that I too have been there, TO WAR, allegedly on behalf of America; I have done that, slept in the mud, many times, and NEVER have I asked anyone to thank me for doing what I thought then was my duty, and that I was not going to start now, by forwarding that offensive message to anyone else, TELLING THEM, IN A SHAMING TYPE OF MANNER, that they now had some obligation to thank these present-day soldiers sleeping in the mud in Iraq, who are there precisely because George W. Bush put them there, for his purposes, which are not necessarily my purposes at all!

What is this crap, anyway, that we are now being told what we have to do, which is go out and find a soldier and thank that soldier for keeping us safe?

How has George W. Bush's action of starting a HOLY WAR in Iraq imposed a duty upon us as free American citizens to now have to be beholden to a soldier, ANY SOLDIER, for our alleged "freedom"?

And the operative words here are "have to"!

Soldiers are soldiers, in my own day, and especially these days, BECAUSE THEY VOLUNTEERED TO BE SO!

They took on a duty, TO THE PROTECTION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, and by God, they had better dispatch that duty to the best of their ability is how I see it, HAVING BEEN ONE, MYSELF; and so, I do not "owe" them any thanks whatsoever for the fulfillment of that "duty", as that "owing" then strips me of something that I just do not choose to give, never having asked for it myself!

Somehow, this "mind-whipping" that is going on these days with these pictures of our soldiers sleeping in the mud in Iraq is getting to be just a bit obscene, at least to me.

In OUR American Pledge of Allegiance, it states "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL", and when one goes and does some research on what this word "LIBERTY" means, to us, as Americans with a Constitution, one finds that the “liberty” guaranteed and protected by constitutional provisions denotes not only freedom from unauthorized physical restraint, but embraces also the freedom of an individual to use and enjoy his faculties in all lawful ways, acquire useful knowledge, marry, establish a home, and bring up children, worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, live and work where he chooses, engage in any of the common and lawful occupations of life, enter into all contracts which may be proper and essential to carrying out successfully the foregoing purposes, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly "pursuit of happiness" by free people.

FREE PEOPLE, of course, are free, and that means free from coercion by others to have to hold a certain "mindset" about this HOLY WAR that Bush Co. has now got us embroiled in over in Iraq, where these soldiers are now having to sleep in the mud, just as soldiers have always done, and for some, not only mud, but frozen ground, as well.

What is now different is that these images of "reality" for a soldier in any war are now being used as whips and goads to make us feel guilty, and I do not like that, to be quite truthful!

OUR soldiers now appear to be used as pawns in some kind of propaganda campaign the likes of which I have never seen before, and I find it quite disturbing, this "cult-like" atmosphere that is beginning to surround our soldiers in Iraq, especially, and this continuing message that if it were not for them, none of us in this country would be free!

That is a false message, and completely and totally so!

We are free in this country, IF, AND ONLY IF, EACH OF US EMBRACES FREEDOM, for ourselves, and then, for all of those who surround us, without them having to fear us, at all, in any manner, including us coercing them to have to think and believe like we do.

Freedom cannot be forced upon someone who does not desire it, and when you are being coerced to have to thank someone else for your alleged and supposed freedom, THAT IS EXACTLY WHEN YOU ARE THE LEAST FREE!

So, please, all of you out there in America spreading these "mind-whipping" coercive messages telling all of us in America that we must be thankful to George W. Bush or some soldier for OUR freedom, please leave off right now, especially with this exploitation of OUR soldiers in Iraq for your own partisan political purposes!

THEN, we shall be free!

And not a minute before!

"Inept " ---" Knee Jerk Response " ------ Descriptive words when we speak of the leaders of the " world's only superpower " That is how the United States is continually referred to in many foreign newspapers. " The world's only superpower " These should be words indicating admiration --- respect -- deference. Actually, they are used in most cases with Contempt -- Fear -- Hatred
The world watches and waits. They rejoice when we stumble. They cheer when our soldiers die. They dance in the streets when we suffer a defeat.

My parents, who emigrated from Lebanon to the " Land of the Free " almost 100 years ago, passed on stories to me when I was young about how the feeling in the Arab World toward the United States was of LOVE -- High Esteem -- Approval. Now what is their strongest feeling toward us? Hate -- Disgust -- Disbelief.

How could it not be so? They have silently watched as we exploited their oil fields, and then demonized them for raising the price of oill

They have pleaded for the U.S. to show a fair and balanced attitude toward them
in their conflict with Israel.

We looked the other way.

We interfered constantly in their internal affairs, culminating in an invasion of an Arab country with trumped up and self serving motives, and then claimed " self defense "

We treated them with a master/slave attitude and took away their rights because
they look " Middle Eastern "

We invented the most barbaric ways to torture them in the hell hole of Abu Ghraib, then blamed it on a few enlisted men.

Hundreds of them languish in Guantanomo with no rights, no charges made against them, no plans to ever set them free.

I am speaking of their feelings toward the United States Government, not primarily toward the American people, although that is slipping, too. They really think we are just stupid, especially when we re elect these " INEPT " self serving, people who are trying their best to take our country down.

The politicians sit around the tables in Washington, they eat the best of food, drink the best wine, shake their heads and say to each other ------

" Why Do They Hate Us? "

On the CNN program " Crossfire " tonight, James Carville said it wasn't considered

nice to call the president a liar. So Carville said, " O.K. He's a bald faced liar. "

Tomorrow, Carville will be hung by the thumbs by the ' compassionate conservatives, ' the elite ruling class who fortunately for all of us, know what's best for us and for everyone else in the world.

How did we ever make it without them?

A.B.

And, on the eve of June 5, 1944, he was extremely concerned because he KNEW how many men would be killed in the coming D-Day landing. Every one of those men was of concern to him.


I am starting to like Harry Reid. I think he may turn out a lot better than I initially gave him credit for.

Well said, A.B. We have, in our short history as a nation, experienced many bad presidencies. This one is clearly not only the worst IMHO but also the most DANGEROUS, both to us and to the rest of the world. We have, in their eyes, become a menace.

"Why do they hate us?"

Because of our outrageous unilateral conduct; because of our callous record of providing support for dispicable tyrants (Saddam) because it suits our commercial interests; because we blame Abu Ghraib on a "few bad apples" when those "apples" are really named Cheney and Gonzales; because we are now prejudiced against "middle eastern looking men" as a category. If Bush had been paying attention instead of clearing brush on his ranch (a task for which he is more competent than as president)

WE WOULDN'T BE IN THE SPOT WE ARE IN.

Well, A.B., YOU HAVE SPOKEN!

And so well and to the point!

It is indeed interesting, this "dynamic" which has arisen in here, with you and jeffmoskin entering the fray, as it were, which I think is a good combination.

jeffmoskin is a good counterpoint to me, because he has survived, as have you, and he has achieved a state of balance within himself that tends to offset me, who has found life at times quite a struggle back here, after returning home from Viet Nam as a disabled veteran.

I remember, A.B., when America was just plain, old America, with none of this "homeland" and "superpower" crap being bandied about as if it meant something, or anything at all, to anybody out there besides the blowhards who use this kind of hyberbolic language to make themselves sound like important, "big men" about town; and I am sure that you and jeffmoskin must have some "prior" memories as well of our "pre-superpower" days, when we were simply a land with the opportunity for liberty and justice for all.

I have spent many hours (and still not enough, never enough, actually) listening to people from your generation talking about their own childhoods during the depression days, and even though life must have been "tough", in some senses, I have never really heard people like you complaining about that "toughness", which is interesting, and up-lifting, at least to me, and encouraging, again, at least to me.

"Just get through!"

"Endure!"

"Persevere!"

Watch words, A.B., for living life to its fullest, as I understand it; and America was a place where you could actually do that, regardless.

Was it always fair, here?

I kind of doubt it, but still, one could even get beyond that, if one chose to!

America was that kind of place when I was young!

It's interesting that I was brought up with no prejudice, and probably did not learn of real prejudice until I got in the Army, and then somehow, it was an institutionalized thing, at that time, of course, aimed at the Vietnamese.

But before that, the only real rancor that I could detect from my "elders" was towards the Japanese, and that, I guess, was some real hatred, although I personally never bought into that, nor was I ever expected to "hate" the Japanese, myself, and actually, I was taught compassion towards those who did!

I was expected to try and see them as people "with issues", I guess you could say in modern-day parlance!

SO!

At one time, we were simply America!

NOW .....

Now, we have become this bloated, distended kind of arrogant abomination, and I am curious about that, although my own study of history tells me that that can happen to nations, and in fact does, which is why there are more nations on the face of the earth that are NOT HERE ANY LONGER, than there are enduring nations, that have been here for any real amount of time at all, as alleged superpowers.

What an ego term that is, and I personally find it quite off-putting, to be truthful, for the reasons that you express so well in your post above.

"Don't get above your raising, son!"

That was an admonition from some of the old folks around my area when I was young, and as I have gotten older, I have come to appreciate its simple wisdom more and more and more.

It is a complement to "you are heading for a fall", and boy, can that ever be a truth!

And if you want to find out some about that truth, just practice "arrogance", and the lesson comes stalking, in a hurry, sometimes.

SO!

That is why we have this particular thread, A.B., as I stated way back in the beginning, in Volume I, to remove "filters" that tend to mask who we really are as individual citizens over here, and thereby show our fellow "travelers" through life down here, that we are human, like them; nothing more, and nothing less!

And please, DO NOT TAR ME WITH A BRUSH BECAUSE OF WORDS COMING OUT OF THE HEAD OF GEORGE W. BUSH, if and when those words are not mine!

George W. Bush does not define me, nor does he speak for me, and he certainly is not a true example of what all Americans are really like!

That is my message, anyway!

Like all of you out there, I am simply a fellow human being, so, please, do as I do; not not hate me without cause!

And if I do give someone cause to hate me, please rise above that, and educate me, so as to remove the cause, and then, perhaps the world will be a little smoother place, despite the best efforts of George W. Bush and his crowd to have it be otherwise!

And speaking of George W. Bush and his crowd of "false-hearted lovers", who are not themselves at all representative of what all Americans can be like, or are like, we have this following from a former member of that Bush Co. crowd that is ruling the roost down there in the heavily-armed and fortified "fortress city" of Washington, D.C., these days:

White House - AP

"Former Aide Blasts Bush's Faith-Based Plan"

40 minutes ago

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is defending the president's faith-based agenda against criticism from a former White House staffer who alleges the president gained politically from his vow to let religious-affiliated organizations use federal money to help the needy, but lacks a commitment to the initiative.

David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, says that as soon as the president announced his faith-based agenda, "hackneyed church-state scare rhetoric made the rounds," yet congressional Republicans matched Democratic hostility with "snoring indifference."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan on Tuesday took issue with Kuo's depiction of the program.

"The president has made the faith-based initiative one of his highest priorities," he said.

"It was at the top of his list when he came into office and it remains on the top of the list as we move into the second term."

Kuo, in an article posted on the religious web site, beliefnet.com, argues that Capitol Hill gridlock could have been eased with minimal West Wing effort, but that over time, it became clear that the White House didn't need to expend Bush's political capital for "pro-poor" legislation.

"Who was going to hold them accountable?"

"Drug addicts, alcoholics, poor moms, struggling urban social service organizations, and pastors aren't quite the NRA," Kuo said of the powerful National Rifle Association lobby.

"The initiative powerfully appealed to both conservative Christians and urban faith leaders — regardless of how much money was being appropriated," he writes.

"Democratic opposition was understood as an attack on his personal faith."

"... The Faith-Based Office was the cross around the White Houses' neck showing the president's own faith orientation."

"That was sufficient."