Bridge Colby has written an interesting piece in the current issue of Orbis arguing that the idea of deterrence should return as the main component of US grand strategy. As the notion of pre-emption slinks offstage unloved and unlamented, Bridge offers a welcome alternative. Well worth reading. Link below: http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/2...0Deterrence.pdf

<h3 class="entry-header">Bill Moyers Essay: The War Debate</h3>

Click the picture above to watch Bill Moyers' essay on the ongoing war debate in Congress.

Phony Piety on the Far Right

Posted on Jul 13, 2007

By Joe Conason

Among the most durable myths of American public life is that conservatives are more authentic in their religious faith than liberals and progressives. Certainly this arrogant presumption prevails on the religious right, where commentators and politicians routinely denigrate the sincerity of Christians such as Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, whose irredeemable sin is that they also happen to be Democrats and candidates for president.

With characteristic condescension, an editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard dismissed public expressions of faith from the left as both pointless and worthless. He declared that the Democrats can only attract Christians who are “religious in the way that Hillary Clinton is religious, which is to say a very liberal Protestant sort of view, in which they believe in everything but God.” That quip is quite mild compared with typical fiery denunciations from the religious right, branding the Clintons as instruments of Satan and Obama as an Islamist in disguise.

Both senators are fully capable of expressing their personal beliefs and defending their theological views whenever that seems appropriate. Like other presidential candidates on both sides of the partisan aisle, they can offer substantial evidence of their religiosity to churchgoing voters. Of course, that won’t discourage conservative critics from noisily denigrating them (and all Democrats) as apostates and heretics.

In these endless squabbles over the faith of politicians, however, it is striking how rarely right-wing officials and preachers find themselves on the defensive about their faith—no matter how hypocritical and even hateful their behavior may be. These supposed men of God may be adulterers; they may be crooks and liars; they may cultivate the wealthy and corrupt while despising the poor and lame; yet somehow, their adherence to Scripture isn’t subject to doubt.

It is time to stop being so damned polite—and to start asking them a few hard questions.

The lucrative business known as “Christian broadcasting,” for instance, is also the source of the most fervent, widely heard attacks on the sinfulness and apostasy of liberals, progressives and Democrats. Now may be the time to ask: What exactly is so “Christian” about these multimillionaire Republican televangelists, who plainly look upon their flocks as so many fat sheep to be fleeced?

From the preeminent Pat Robertson of Christian Broadcasting Network to Paul Crouch of Trinity Broadcasting Network to lesser but rising figures such as Rod Parsley and John Hagee, these mountebanks persuade their hopeful viewers to send in checks, frequently promising that the Lord will bring prosperity to the poor and restore health to the ill if only those “tithes” are sufficiently generous. When the expected miracles fail to materialize, say the preachers, it is only because the faithful didn’t believe strongly enough—or didn’t donate enough money. Contributions are routinely misused to purchase luxury estates, private jets and lavish vacations in Vegas, rather than to propagate the Gospel in Asia or to relieve suffering in Africa, as advertised.

Meanwhile, these fundamentalist shepherds promote hostility toward homosexuals, liberals, feminists and Muslims and toward Christians who don’t share their dogmas, all in the name of the Prince of Peace. They steer their followers toward right-wing ideology and Republican candidates, skirting or ignoring the laws that prohibit churches from engaging in partisan politics. They abhor Social Security, Medicare, national health insurance and every kind of government assistance to families, even while they eagerly cash in on “faith-based” federal handouts.

Now presumably the faith healers and prosperity preachers can cite biblical verses to justify their dubious behavior, but it is hard to imagine that any of this is what Jesus would really do. Too many times in recent years the blustering enforcers of family values and public piety have turned out to be frauds. The unhappy examples range from Ralph Reed’s gambling connections and Newt Gingrich’s infidelities to Ted Haggard’s secret gay lifestyle. The latest episode involves Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), another conservative Christian moralist, whose name just turned up in the phone book of the “D.C. Madam.” (He once said that Bill Clinton deserved to be removed from office for his sexual infidelity, but now shows no sign of resigning his own seat.)

When these Christian gentlemen are caught with their pants down or their hands in the cookie jar, they invariably claim that they have repented and prayed for forgiveness. In a spirit of generosity that they often lack, let us hope that they can cleanse themselves of wrongdoing. But let us remain skeptical whenever an ostentatiously pious conservative presumes to judge the faith of liberal Christians—including candidates for president.

Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer.

© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=3975 July 14, 2007

Unimpeachable Conservative Calls for Bush/Cheney Impeachment

By background n015e

Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer with unimpeachable conservative credentials was on Bill Moyers Journal saying things that used to be considered "porn" on Daily Kos. He is saying things many people their still have to be convinced make sense. He's calling for the impeachment of Bush AND Cheney. Immediately!

Fein was there at Watergate. Fein helped draft the articles of impeachment for Clinton. This is stunning. Someone needs to send it to Nancy, tape her eyelids open and make her watch it. This is historic.

HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE TAKE HOME TALKING POINTS:

1. Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. It is the CURE for constitutional crisis. (Nichols)
2. Let unchallenged, these powers will be lying around like loaded weapons for future presidents. (Fein)

These are just some of the highlights I caught as Fein defends "The Fighting Constitution": He compares Bush to Nixon, King George III, and Hitler! There are several other gems I missed (e.g. Nichols' points comparing the US and Roman Empires)

Even Nixon said "Ok" when Congress said "No money for Laos and Cambodia." This is a guy who said "If I do it, it's ok." Even Nixon didn't have the audacity to tell John Dean, "No you can't testify."

When they get to Harriet Miers he says her failure to testify is:

Certainly an article in a bill of impeachment. This is obstruction of justice.

About Sarah Taylor's oath to the President: I was there at the time of Watergate. That was like the oath to the military in Germany. An oath to the Fuhrer.

Bush is totally heedless of any honor for law and accountability. He has special rules for him and his cabinet.

This is a sneering attitude. "I am king." Bush is over reaching and making claims that even George III would not make.

About congress giving up it's powers: It is not an option... they have walked away from their responsibilities. If you abandon that , you abandon the ship of state and it capsizes.

There is nothing to stop them from shutting down all of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's illegal operations. ILLEGAL OPERATIONS... his words.

We cannot trust the reins of power to these people they are unreliable.

Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. It is a cure for that. Don't mistake the cure with the disease.

Nothing would gratify me more than they stand up and say "I was wrong" and give up the power. Then we could stop.

One of the lessons we learned from Nixon was he never repented. We have to get that.

This is why holding them to account now is important. If we don't do it, we are saying we can find out you have done harm to the republic and there is no penalty for that. That will hold. That will be a precedent.

I wish I could do a better job relaying this but it was like trying to read the numbers on train cars as they roll by and this train is ROARING past. Besides, I was typing with one hand while I used my other hand to pick my jaw up off the floor.

Get the video and watch it. Here's the link to Bill Moyer's Journal so you can get the full show when it comes on line. There is also a comment section and a blog area for discussion that is heating up right now.

For "balance" there was John Nichols from the Nation. He barely had to speak. When he did, he was moderate in comparison. Bruce Fein should be Colbert's ALPHA DOG OF THE MONTH. For additional reference, here is a link to an article Fein wrote BEFORE Democrats took control of Congress called "Restrain This White House."

HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE TAKE HOME TALKING POINTS:

1) Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. It is the CURE for constitutional crisis. (Nichols)

2) Let unchallenged, these powers will be lying around like loaded weapons for future presidents. (Fein)






Authors Website: http://mythingthepoint.blogspot.com

Authors Bio: In the end, the truth plainly spoken is still the truth. Everything else is just noise. Back

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_wi...e_the_us_we.htm July 14, 2007

W has made the US weaker due to his crimes.

By winston

W's international policy has made the US weaker, hated by Islamic and non-Islamic countries, and has virtually broken our military. The bloated military budget has shot up our deficits and our economy is in tatters, except of course for W's "Pioneer" and "Ranger" political contributors in the top 1%.

In W's recent speeches he was originally going to slowly descend into agreeing with the pleas of the nation to start a phased re-deployment of our troops from Iraq, but someone let him say words that weren't written by Rove as the always hypocritical-or is it blatantly lying W, has again linked 9-11 to Iraq. In W's twisted psyche, once you get the crowd riled up with the 9-11 propaganda, you don't have to flip-flop on Iraq. Staying the course is the GOP way, especially when that course gives Cheney's Halliburton all the money that the Feckless, Reckless, Dick_____ one needs.

The article "White House Gives Iraq Mixed Marks in Report" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071200736.html
shows how even people who W put in place, can't agree with W's lies as "Meanwhile, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, senior intelligence officials said there has been no meaningful positive change in Iraq since January, when a starkly pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate warned that even if security improved, violent sectarian divisions threatened to destroy the government.

Thomas Fingar, the deputy director of national intelligence and chief of the National Intelligence Council, which wrote the January estimate, said that assessment did not change. While the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made "halting efforts to bridge the divisions and restore commitment to a unified country . . . it has made limited progress on key legislation," such as the oil revenue law and a range of power-sharing measures.

"Communal violence and scant common ground between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds continues to polarize politics," Fingar said yesterday. Even the majority-Shiite bloc that Maliki heads, he said, "does not present a unified front" and has continued to deteriorate in recent months. Meanwhile, the provision of essential services seen as crucial in building support for the government, including electricity and oil production, remains below prewar levels, he said. Some have declined over the past six months."

So, any lies W makes about Iraq should be ignored. The fact that W has helped Al-Qaida, by allowing them freedom in Pakistan, should be noted. A new threat assessment, titled "Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West," says al-Qaida's ability to operate in certain areas of Pakistan, which is a result of the now infamous deal between the government and tribal leaders last year, has given it the facility to plan attacks around the world. The intelligence report says that intelligence officials emphasized that, despite the resurgence of al-Qaida, there's no specific threat against the United States.

The July 9, 2007 article "Bush Tries Moving the Goalposts" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/09/BL2007070900882.html
states "When President Bush announced in January that he was sending more troops to Iraq, he declared that the Iraqis needed to exploit the surge by following through on several promises.

"America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced," Bush said.

What would happen if the Iraqis failed? Aides at the time insisted that there would be consequences, without saying what or when. The president's own warning was hardly ominous: "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people," he said-long after that had already happened.

But at least the new policy held out some vague hope for accountability.

Congress has since made the benchmarks more concrete, setting some deadlines if not for achieving the goals then at least for some progress reports from the president."

Big bro 43 has his surrogates begging GOP goons to stay the course as "Last week, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, called in from a brief vacation to join intense discussions in sessions that included Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's longtime strategist, and Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff. . . .

"The views of many of the participants in that discussion were unclear, and the officials interviewed could not provide any insight into what Vice President Dick Cheney had been telling President Bush.

"They described Mr. Hadley as deeply concerned that the loss of Republicans could accelerate this week, a fear shared by Mr. Rove. But they also said that Mr. Rove had warned that if Mr. Bush went too far in announcing a redeployment, the result could include a further cascade of defections-and the passage of legislation that would force a withdrawal by a specific date, a step Mr. Bush has always said he would oppose."

Who is the villain-Rove the puppeteer, or his willing stooge W?

The Nazi propaganda machine has nothing on Herr Karl. How many times do we have to say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. A few years ago Cheney said that lie and the next day W said the Iraq Study Group stated unequivocally that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but W is down in the polls and he wants to scare the apathetic US red staters, so, as the July 11, 2007 article, "Bush again links Iraq war to Al Qaeda" at
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-qaeda11jul11,1,4979906.story?coll=la-headlines-world
quotes the stooge saying "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people" in Iraq, Bush said. "The killers who came to America have said, with clarity, we want you out of Iraq so we can have a safe haven from which to attack again."

If he can sway one person with that tired tripe then that person should be forced to wear a sign on his back saying "Kick me. I still believe Iraq was involved in 9-11"! I dare say that if anyone wear a sign such as that that person would get more than his butt kicked in.

Compare W to J. F. K.'s "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." with W's "Mission Accomplished"! J. F. K. warned us that we were being threatened by our well-known enemy, the USSR and admitted that we'd all have to make sacrifices. For W's followers the mission that was accomplished was picking up a few red state votes due to these knuckle dragging Neanderthals' long-standing allegiance of voting for GOP blood-thirsty chicken-hawks whose international policy consists solely of killing foreigners-in this case the largely undefined and imaginary fear-mongering "extremist Islamic jihadists", or "those who are against us", or "Islamofascists", and fleecing the US taxpayer for scams that redistributed our wealth to the CEOs of the Halliburtons of the world.

What does the world expect of us?

The second part of J.F.K.'s concept was "My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what, together, we can do for the freedom of man."

W has perverted that noble ideal by labeling the raping and pillaging of Iraq as "Operation Iraqi Freedom". The only things that have gained freedom in Iraq is their resources and their population due to a 2 million out of 25 million Iraqi citizens exodus-and how can anyone even guess what the collateral damage mortalities are.

bin laden is somewhere firing off statements about how corrupt the US infidels are-and why wouldn't he?

Our allies across the globe used to cast a longing eye at the US, which formerly was a beacon of hope amid the world's despair.

Poll after poll shows our friends' and foes' hatred of the US intensifying daily!

It is big bro 43's fault. He lied, and bullied his way into an illegal war with Iraq and now the world hates us-and why wouldn't they?

When our loyal opposition party, our Democrats, take their cautious steps to ending W's reign of terror they must realize that the world needs justice to be served. W can't walk away without an impeachment unless the Democrats want to be known as the party that allowed a mass murderer to get off unpunished!

W is a bible thumper. He knows about "vengeance is sweet sayeth the Lord". Every Iraqi youth whose fathers and uncles-and yes, mothers, aunts and sisters also, have been butchered in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" have valid reasons for vengeance. Their retaliation will take the form of being IED carriers in Iraq, or Europe, or even the US. And let's get this straight-in a civilized world the concept of people tossing away their lives to kill innocent people is despicable, but in the arena of 4th generation warfare, the barbarians can only resort to terrorist attacks against the superpower. Just a little history might be appropriate. Never in the world's history has the superpower won a 4th generation battle-the terrorists, the weaker barbarian, have always won. They have stormed the gates and have always vanquished their technologically superior foe in these asymmetric warfare battles.

We have to smite W! Radical Islamic jihadists as well as extremist Christians, Jews, Hindus, expect it from us.

When you hear about people who have lost loved ones due to a crime they always say that frying their loved one's killer doesn't bring the loved one back. Executing the killer is only a first step. We must hold W to justice. All of the lives he wasted-US soldiers', as well as innocent Iraqis' lives snuffed out for what?

Why is that the Democrats can't immediately rip W from his throne of "unitary executive power"? Are they weak or are they just hogtied by their slim majority in the Senate to bring the fool to justice? "Tricky Dick" tried to tough it out until Republicans told him enough was enough. Now Republicans are emulating the stances of their predecessors back in the Watergate era.



The article "Administration Shaving Yardstick for Iraq Gains" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701274.html
had the GOP nameless, faceless official saying "There are things going on that we never could have foreseen," said one official, who noted that the original benchmarks set by Bush six months ago-and endorsed by the Maliki government-are not only unachievable in the short term but also irrelevant to changing the conditions in Iraq.

As they work to put together the reports due to Congress next week and in

September, these officials and others close to Iraq policy recognize that the administration is boxed in by measurements that were enshrined in U.S. law in May.

"That is a problem," the official said. "These are congressionally mandated benchmarks now." They require Bush to certify movement in areas ranging from the passage of specific legislation by the Iraqi parliament to the numbers of Iraqi military units able to operate independently. If he cannot make a convincing case, the legislation requires the president to explain how he will change his strategy."

The Iraqis have only made progress on 8 out of 18 benchmarks. W is lying about the benchmarks, but we've heard that story far too many times. If a student had a 44% grade at mid-term, that student better get an easier class. W should let international policy to grown-ups, people who aren't motivated by GOP partisan gain solely. W should let the Baker Hamilton Group make recommendations that our military can follow.

W isn't commander-in-chief. W has adherence to Karl who knows nothing other than how to get stupid red staters to vote for GOP daddy party goons, which translates into attacking defenseless countries to follow the GOP stereotype role of fear-mongering and war-mongering.

W has been begged by professional politicians to allow the Iraq Study Group to reconvene. Since doing so would disagree with Karl's advice, W won't allow that to happen even though that would help get the US out of its terrible "everlasting war against terrorism".



Authors Bio: Winston is an ex-Social Worker, burnt out by too much indifference regading our weak and weary who had too little interest in politics until the illegal Iraq War started.

Back

Published on 911Blogger.com (http://www.911blogger.com) <h2 class="title"> A Year in Review - 9/11 Media Coverage in 2006 </h2> By dz Created 2007-01-07 17:51 Paying attention to 9/11 related news on a daily basis kinda distorts the view of how much media coverage there actually HAS been regarding 9/11 skepticism in the last year. Below is a listing I put together of all of the somewhat-major news coverage of the 9/11 truth movement in 2006. I am sure there are a few things missing here and there, but having a listing like this puts into perspective how much 9/11 discussion there has been in the last year, and how much further 9/11 truth has been forced into the public eye.

This listing is NOT a listing of the major news this year, but rather a listing of the major media coverage and discussion which resulted as a response to the growing 9/11 movement.

January
Vanity Fair Discusses Upcoming 9/11 Movies [1] - 01/19/2006

February
Maxim Magazine Covers '9/11 Truth Movement' [2] - 02/18/2006
The Village Voice Covers the '9/11 Truth Movement' [3] - 02/22/2006
Dr. David Ray Griffin on Mike Malloy This Wednesday Night [4] - 02/22/2006

March
Rep. Dennis Kucinich States That Bush Administration Let 9/11 Happen [5] - 03/04/2006
Loose Change Audio Clips Featured on New Ministry Album - Audio Download [6] - 03/08/2006
Wesley Clark - 'We never finished the investigation of 9/11' [7] - 03/15/2006
New York Magazine Covers 9/11 Truth Movement [8] - 03/21/2006
Charlie Sheen Questions Official Story of 9/11 [9] - 03/21/2006
Showbiz Tonight (CNN) covers Sheen and 9/11 Movement [10], Night 2 [11], Night 3 [12], Night 4 [13] - 03/23/2006 - 03/28/2006
San Francisco Chronicle Talks About 9/11 [14] - 03/30/2006
Actor & Director Ed Asner Shares 9/11 Concerns [15] - 03/31/2006
San Francisco Chronicle Covers Dr. David Ray Griffin [16] - 03/31/2006

(more after the break..)

April
Alex Jones on MTV - Video Stream [17] - 04/04/2006
Radio Host Lionel Discusses 9/11 on NY Radio Station WOR [18] - 04/05/2006
Bill Maher and Guests Discuss Bush's Response on 9/11 [19] - 04/06/2006
Opie and Anthony Yell At Jason Bermas About 9/11 [20] - 04/07/2006
Charlie Sheen on Jimmy Kimmel Live [21] - 04/15/2006
USAToday Talks About Loose Change [22] - 04/28/2006
CNN Cover's 9/11 Skeptics and Misrepresents 911Truth.org [23] - 04/29/2006

May
Kristen Breitweiser Requests Government Accountability on Hardball [24] - 05/05/2006
Tom DeLonge of Blink 182 Fame Interviews James Fetzer - MP3 Download [25] - 05/09/2006
ABC Follows up New Pentagon Footage With Talk of 'Conspiracy Theories' [26] - 05/17/2006
Dylan Avery on Canadian television regarding "new" 911 video [27] - 05/18/2006
CoFounder of Air America Discusses 9/11 on Huffington Post [28] - 05/20/2006
The Times Herald Covers 9/11 Skeptics Jon Gold and Dr. David Ray Griffin [29] - 05/21/2006
Dave vonKleist Interviewed by Glenn Beck on CNN Headline News - Video Download [30] - 05/21/2006
Overview of New National Zogby Poll on 9/11 Coverup [31] - 05/23/2006

June
The New York Times Covers the Chicago Conference [32] - 06/05/2006
Keith Olbermann Mentions Chicago Event - Video Download [33] 06/06/2006
Bryan Sacks From 911Truth.org Interviewed on WWRL in New York - MP3 Download [34] - 06/07/2006
Former CIA Member Robert Baer Comments on 9/11 'Inside Job' Possibilities - Audio Download [35] - 06/10/2006
Italy Mainstream Media Speaks of 9/11 Cover-up [36] - 06/10/2006
ABC Affiliate Covers Steven Jones Presentation at Salt Lake Community College [37] - 06/17/2006
Mike Berger of 911truth.org on Scarborough Country - Video Download [38] - 06/20/2006
Vermont CBS Affiliate Covers Craig Hill's Senate Run [39] - 06/23/2006
Dr. James Fetzer on Hannity and Colmes [40] - 06/23/2006
Washington Post Covers L.A. Conference [41] - 06/26/2006
Blender Magazine Covers Tom Delonge's Comments on 9/11 [42] - 06/27/2006

July
Kevin Barrett on Hannity and Colmes [43] - 07/11/2006
Kevin Barrett / Rep. Nass Covered on CNN [44] - 07/12/2006
Robert Bowman Tonight on Hannity and Colmes [45] - 07/13/2006
The NYTimes publishes OpEd on Barrett [46] - 07/23/2006
CSPAN's Coverage of the American Scholars Symposium - Video Download [47] - 07/30/2006

August
Vanity Fair: What the Air Force DIDN'T do on 9/11 [48] - 08/01/2006
NYTimes covers Barrett again [49] - 08/01/2006
Washington Post: Government Lied about 9/11 Military Response [50] - 08/02/2006
Randi Rhodes Interviews Paul Thompson Over Recent NORAD News [51] - 08/03/2006
CNN: "...we may not have been told the truth..." [52] - 08/03/2006
NY Post: 1 in 3 Americans... [53] - 08/03/2006
Fox News Hosts Weigh in on Latest 9/11 Poll and Kevin Barrett [54] - 08/04/2006
Loose Change's Jason Bermas on MSNBC [55] - 08/07/2006
Fetzer on CNBC [56] - 08/09/2006
Dylan Avery on NPR [57] - 08/09/2006
Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. David Ray Griffin [58] - 08/10/2006

September
William Rodriguez Gets Cover story of New York's Largest Spanish Newspaper [59] - 09/06/2006
Washington Post Article on 9/11 Truth [60] - 09/08/2006
Guardian UK covers David Ray Griffin [61] - 09/09/2006
CBC Sunday Covers Alternative 9/11 Theories in Detail [62] - 09/10/2006
Loose Change Made Front page of Syracuse Post-Standard [63] - 09/10/2006
LA Times: 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y. [64] - 09/10/2006
Gary Bell From AM640 Toronto Devotes 5 Hour Show to Attack Official 9/11 Story [65] - 09/10/2006
MSNBC TV Asks About U.S. Involvement in 9/11 in Question of the Day Poll [66] - 09/10/2006
Mainstream Norwegian TV Covers 9/11 Press for Truth [67] - 09/11/2006
Loose Change Covered on Paula Zahn Now on CNN [68] - 09/12/2006
Venezuela's Chavez says Bush planned 9/11 attacks - Video [69] - 09/13/2006
Video: C-SPAN "9/11 Press for Truth" press conference [70] - 09/13/2006
Dr. David Ray Griffin on BBC [71] - 09/13/2006
Geraldo Covers Recent 9/11 Polls and Interviews Les Jamieson [72] - 09/18/2006
9/11 Truth comes to Saturday Night Live [73] - 09/23/2006
James Fetzer on Hannity & Colmes - Video Download [74] - 09/27/2006

October
Video: Japanese 9/11 TV coverage [75] - 10/05/2006
Southpark Episode on 9/11 Conspiracy - Video Download [76] - 10/11/2006
James Fetzer on The O'Reilly Factor - Video Download [77] - 10/12/2006
Only 16% Think Government Telling the Truth about 9/11 [78] - 10/14/2006
Fox News Brief on Steven Jones's Early Retirement From BYU [79] - 10/23/2006
Denver Post Covers 9/11 [80] - 10/30/2006
Dutch News Airs 15 Minute Piece on 9/11 Conspiracies [81] - 10/30/2006

November
The Stanford Daily Covers 9/11 Skepticism [82] - 11/01/2006
NYTimes Article References Chavez's Questioning of 9/11 [83] - 11/03/2006
Bill Maher would impeach Bush for his non-actions on 9/11 [84] - 11/03/2006
Mancow Makes His Debut on Fox News By Being Belligerent With Kevin Smith Regarding 9/11 Skepticism [85] - 11/19/2006
Kevin Barrett on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 [86] - 11/23/2006
C-SPAN 2 - "9/11 & American Empire" [87] - 11/25/2006
Kansas City Publication Profiles Members of 9/11 Movement in 4 Page Article [88] - 11/27/2006

December
William Rodriguez Featured in Devon Newspaper and Interviewed on BBC Bristol [89] - 12/04/2006
9/11 and Pearl Harbor Conspiracies on Front Page of San Diego Union-Tribune [90] - 12/04/2006
Showtime Series 'Sleeper Cell: American Terror' References Theories of U.S. Involvement in 9/11 [91] - 12/11/2006
The New American Covers '9/11 Press for Truth' [92] - 12/12/2006
Ministry Song Featuring Loose Change Audio Clips Receives Grammy Nomination [93] - 12/14/2006
9-11 Truth on New Zealand's Mainstream TV [94] - 12/17/2006
San Francisco CBS 5 Covers SF Tea Party [95] - 12/18/2006
The Boston Globe Covers The Boston 9/11 Truth Tea Party [96] - 12/19/2006
Kevin Barrett Interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on 'The Factor' [97] - 12/19/2006
Actor James Brolin Plugs 911weknow.com on The View - Video Download [98] - 12/28/2006

The 9/11 truth movement has now forced 9/11 documentaries onto netflix.com, has gotten hosts like Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes talking, has been shown numerous times on CSPAN, is the subject of countless books, was the focus of a number of political hopefuls, and more. While the listing above shows just how much media coverage 9/11 truth has garnered in 2006, there are countless other articles which would most certainly need to be in any full 2006 year-end review. Rather than writing up such a full encompassing 2006 year end review (which would be about impossible) please feel free to comment on what you consider to be the big happenings of 2006 related to 9/11 skepticism.

A very huge thank you to everyone who has helped us cover 2006, and best wishes for the new year!

Source URL:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5449 Links:
[1] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1068
[2] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1133
[3] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1144
[4] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1147
[5] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1283
[6] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1289
[7] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1174
[8] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1197
[9] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1199
[10] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1207
[11] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1211
[12] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1222
[13] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1236
[14] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1248
[15] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1258
[16] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1261
[17] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1322
[18] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1326
[19] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1340
[20] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1345
[21] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1380
[22] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1433
[23] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1437
[24] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1596
[25] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1470
[26] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1498
[27] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1518
[28] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1525
[29] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1536
[30] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1537
[31] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1545
[32] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1748
[33] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1757
[34] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1761
[35] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1780
[36] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1602
[37] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1637
[38] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1658
[39] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1682
[40] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1685
[41] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1704
[42] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1710
[43] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1948
[44] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1957
[45] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1960
[46] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1814
[47] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1881
[48] http://www.911blogger.com/node/1896
[49] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2026
[50] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2034
[51] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2043
[52] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2050
[53] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2053
[54] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2064
[55] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2084
[56] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2098
[57] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2102
[58] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2104
[59] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2575
[60] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2652
[61] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2690
[62] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2719
[63] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2730
[64] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2732
[65] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2734
[66] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2736
[67] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2764
[68] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2797
[69] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2818
[70] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2826
[71] http://www.911blogger.com/node/2827
[72] http://www.911blogger.com/node/3004
[73] http://www.911blogger.com/node/3137
[74] http://www.911blogger.com/node/3226
[75] http://www.911blogger.com/node/3449
[76] http://www.911blogger.com/node/3641
[77] http://www.911blogger.com/node/3665
[78] http://www.911blogger.com/node/3720
[79] http://www.911blogger.com/node/3997
[80] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4167
[81] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4181
[82] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4225
[83] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4260
[84] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4268
[85] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4570
[86] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4632
[87] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4657
[88] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4680
[89] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4826
[90] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4821
[91] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4979
[92] http://www.911blogger.com/node/4995
[93] http://www.911blogger.com/node/5035
[94] http://www.911blogger.com/node/5091
[95] http://www.911blogger.com/node/5113
[96] http://www.911blogger.com/node/5142
[97] http://www.911blogger.com/node/5157
[98] http://www.911blogger.com/node/5296

Newly Released Message: Osama Bin Laden Calls for Islamic Martyrdom

By Jeffrey Imm


Osama Bin Laden appeared in a 50 second clip in an As Sahab video posted on Jihadi web sites today, promoting Islamic martyrdom and quoting Muhammad.

CNN and Laura Mansfield have released translations of the Bin Laden comments today. The video is linked at Laura Mansfield's web site here.

In today's video message, Osama Bin Laden stresses the importance of martyrdom for Muslim causes, quoting Muhammad per translations by both Laura Mansfield and CNN:

"So be alert, be wise and think. What is this status that the best of mankind wished for himself? He wished to be a martyr."

"He himself said 'By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to attack and be martyred, then attack again and be martyred, then attack again and be martyred.' "

"So this whole broad life is summarized by he who was inspired by God, the lord of the heavens and earth, praised and exalted is He. This glorious prophet who was inspired by God summarized this entire life by these words. He wished upon himself this status. Happy is the one who was chosen by god as a martyr. "

Osama Bin Laden quotes Muhammad based on Hadeeth Sunnah Sahih Bukhari, Book 52. Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad), specifically in Volume 4, Book 52, Number 54. Sahih Bukhari is a collection of sayings and deeds of Muhammad, also known as the sunnah. The specific reference states: "By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya' (army-unit) setting out in Allah's Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred."

The video also included "various clips showing jihadist fighters reading their final wills, as well as statements from new Al Qaeda in Afghanistan commander Abu Yazid."

ABC states the martrydom video included statements from "al Qaeda followers from Pakistan, Morocco, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Turkistan."

CNN states that '[t]he videotape was made in the last four weeks, but the clips appear to be old... [and that the video included] Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" who was killed in June 2006. CNN also stated that the "environment shown is similar to that on releases made before the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, in which bin Laden is seen in the company of some of the hijackers".

Per ABC, "[t[he clip is part of a 40-minute film "Scent of Heaven" from al Qaeda's as Sahab video propaganda arm discovered on the Internet by Laura Mansfield of Strategic Translations."

Laura Mansfield notes that "The Bin Laden clip appears to be a short portion of an older video of the Al Qaeda leader speaking to his followers about martyrdom. There are no indications as to the date when the clip was filmed. Bin Laden is shown dressed in dark, with a camouflage jacket, and a dark cap. He has a ring and a watch on his right hand, and gestures freely with both hands. The video surfaced on jihadist forums where similar Al Qaeda statements have been released previously. It is branded with the As Sahab logo. No subtitles were provided."


Sources:

Laura Mansfield web site: Bin Laden stresses martyrdom in short segment of new As Sahab video

Video Web Link from Laura Mansfield web site

CNN: Newly released bin Laden video calls for martyrdom

ABC News: Possible New Message From Osama Bin Laden

FOX News: Osama Bin Laden Appears in New Video, Officials Probe Authenticity

Hadeeth Sunnah Sahih Bukhari, Book 52. Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad). Quote from Volume 4, Book 52, Number 54

[b]VIDEO REPORTS [/b]
[b]Bill Moyers:
On Impeachment
07.14.07 [/b]

JMiller@bestcyrano.org

By Peter Chamberlin

7/13/07

Bill Clinton seems to get blamed by this Neocon administration for many things, but most of all for “losing bin Laden.” The ugly truth is that, in this case, they are probably right. Clinton’s team probably had good information on Osama’s whereabouts most of the time, since they were playing on the same team for most of Clinton’s two terms. It is becoming clear from the accumulating evidence that Bill Clinton resurrected Ronald Reagan’s Afghan strategy of using Islamist guerillas as his own covert foreign policy in Europe and other intransigent hot spots that seemed to be immune to normal diplomacy. Clinton’s foolish toying with Islamist killers is probably the spark that ignited the international jihad against America.

Those of us who are diehard “Bush haters,” like to blame Bush senior for creating Al Qaida, when he abandoned Afghanistan. The problem is, even though Bush did abandon the Afghans, it fell to the next misled president to breathe life into Al Qaida. According to Gen. Hameed Gul (former head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence-ISI- during the war against the Soviets), when Vice President George H. W. Bush became president in 1989, he threatened to “clip ISI’s wings.” (Gul now serves as an adviser to Pakistan’s extremist religious political parties. He may also be the source of the Al Qaida rumors that it was the Israeli Mossad, not bin Laden, that carried-out the 9/11 attacks, as well as the idea of creating an Islamic Caliphate, beginning with Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics.) After the withdrawal of the Soviets on February 15, 1989, Bush began to make good on that threat. According to author George Crile, in Charlie’s War, on September 30, 1991, the end of the fiscal year, the flow officially stopped (except for $200 million [matched by the Saudis] hidden within the defense authorizations bill for 1992). After the US abandoned Afghanistan, to attack Saddam Hussein, the ISI was left alone to manage the Afghan tribal bloodbath and civil war. Soon after the liberation of Kabul, their man, Hezb-i-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (long the main recipient of CIA weaponry) started the civil war, by firing rockets at Kabul. (The ISI later created the Taliban regime and installed them in power in 1996.)

In 1993, the stage had been set for Clinton to take over, after Bush had walked off the field. His common history with the radical Islamists began shortly after he took office, when he acceded to the demands of the Muslim governments, who were wanting to send aid to their brethren in Yugoslavia. Clinton began a covert operation with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, to send money and arms to Bosnia-Herzegovina. According to a lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee, published in 1997 (while the Republicans were pre-occupied with learning about the president’s sexual habits), the Clinton administration “helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base,” by recruiting and arming thousands of Mujahideen through the “Militant Islamic Network.” The report then went on to claim administration “…complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo.., involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline… (and using Muslim “charity” groups who were) connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden…” [Washington Post, 9/22/96]

The result was an illegal Iran-Contra style operation which utilized Iranian militants and elements of Al Qaida in Albania some of which were under direct command of Al Qaida “number two” Ayman al-Zawahiri), to smuggle weapons and mujahedeen though Croatia into Bosnia. This secret program was later duplicated with the Kosovo Liberation Army, and again in nearby Macedonia, as well as in Chechnya. According to author and researcher Yossef Bodansky (director Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare), Clinton also used these Al Qaida offshoots against Egypt, after President Mubarak opposed Clinton’s use of force against Iraq in February 1998. Some of these Islamists, again led by Zawahiri, had tried to assassinate Mubarak in 1995. (Zawahiri had earlier gained notoriety as one of the conspirators, and spokesman, for the assassins of Anwar Sadat.) In Bosnia, the Islamists staged attacks upon fellow Muslims in order to elicit international sympathy and thus intervention. The outcomes of these actions effectively converted NATO into the Islamists’ air force, the Western press into their propaganda organs, and American troops into their proxy forces.

The Saudis provided most of the money for the covert program in Yugoslavia (just as they had matched all US funds to the original mujahedeen), the Iranians supplied the arms, and the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) brought the “Afghan-Arab” veterans to the fight. The ISI is widely known as a surrogate of the CIA, which had created them, as well as SAVAK, the Shah of Iran’s secret police. During the Afghan jihad, the CIA used the ISI to create the drug/arms pipeline that supplied the war effort and promoted the smuggling of heroin into Afghanistan, in order to turn the Soviet troops into heroin addicts. (Echoes of Iran-contra CIA drug-running charges.) After the fall of the Soviet puppet Najibullah in 1992, the veteran Arabs took their skills back to their homelands, where they began to spread the militant disease, sharing the technical skills that we had taught them, creating local cells of “the base.”

The ISI sent thousands of the remaining jihadis to Kashmir, to wage a new covert war against India, after the alarming series of nuclear tests which both countries had just conducted. ISI seeded thousands of their own paramilitary forces in with the mujahedeen, to lead the fight in the disputed territory. How can we possibly tell the Taliban and Al Qaida from the Pakistani undercover ISI agents? For that matter, is there even a difference? Who is to say if “Al Qaida” is not really just another Pakistani covert operation? Bin Laden himself never used the term before 1999. In 1998 he created the “International Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders.” According to former agents of the French secret service, “al Qaida” (”the base” in Arabic) was the name for a database of an early version of the Internet that had been created by Saudi Arabia, for families of the Afghan mujahedeen to use to communicate with their honored “freedom fighters.” Did Al Qaida originate as a generic name for the entire Islamic mujahedeen support network?

The ISI did not create “the base” (the mujahedeen network) by themselves; it was created by the Saudis under the supervision of the CIA master planners. Were the Pakistanis working with Al Qaida on 9/11? If not, then how were the terrorists able to coordinate their attacks with American war games? Who helped them to pre-wire and precisely time the secondary explosives in the buildings? Was the ISI still in the employ of the CIA in 2001? How could the ISI or Al Qaida have managed to “stand down” the protective fighter bubble, that should have prevented the later attacks, if there was no one on the inside to hobble those defenses?

There are far too many discrepancies in the “official versions” of these events, and in the war on terrorism as well, to allow the cover-ups to continue. President Bush has based the Iraq war and the war on terrorism on a series of cover-ups—a cover-up of the truth about the “Iraq threat” following an even bigger cover-up of the cycle of endless retribution with the Islamists over our shared secret history. Bush has followed the deadly path blazed by Clinton, seeking to revive his lost wars and to force his version of diplomacy upon a targeted Muslim population. Unlike Clinton, Bush is trying to fight multiple wars using the Sunni terrorist network (Al Qaida the base), to create multiple civil wars and to ignite a regional religious civil war. Bush is a lost man, multiplying his failures in hopes of ending up with something that resembles victory in the end product.

Bush has breathed new life into the American/Saudi/Pakistani Islamist network as the foundation for his covert war against Iran. He is using Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as bases of operation, from which to train and launch trained Sunni terrorists into Iran. What are the ramifications of bringing the ISI into the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts? Could the ISI be to blame for the sudden avalanche of “irrefutable proof” being offered of Iranian weapons in Sunni hands in Iraq and Afghanistan? That “proof” was the basis for yesterday’s Senate vote to accuse Iran of waging war against American forces. The events on the ground in Afghanistan and in Pakistan speak volumes about Pakistani veracity as our partner in the war on terror. Thanks to them, the Taliban may be on the verge of victory in both of those countries. Afghanistan and the tribal provinces of Western Pakistan could probably be cleansed of most Taliban by repeating the carpet-bombing campaign of 2001, but both countries would choose Islamist governments in democratic elections. A hostile Islamist government in Islamabad would have nuclear missiles with which to carry-out their retribution.

The next president has the awful task of unwinding this tangled mess. If he has any chance at all of accomplishing this task, it will not be by continuing the failed policies of Clinton and Bush. They took Reagan’s violent, though successful policy of working with Islamic extremists and tried to co-opt and use the Islamists for very un-Islamic tasks. Bush has exacerbated the repercussions of these manipulations by turning a struggle to bring a few thousand Al Qaida terrorists (whoever they really were) to justice into a “clash of civilizations” against all of Islam. This has proven to be a powerful Islamic recruiting device.

The next president will have to deal with empowered Islamists without being so quick to resort to bombs. He will have to try to reason with extremist Islamist governments. The next president will have to act reasonably, as well. This means that we cannot elect another extremist president ourselves, unless his extremism is in defense of the Constitution and the people it defends, which includes defending the “inalienable human rights” of all people. He must be a man who will defend America against those who call themselves “Americans,” while doing so many bad things to so many people.

Saudi prince sponsoring terrorist groups
Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:54:16


Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan supports the terrorist group Mujahedin Khalq Organization and also al-Qaeda and Fath al-Islam now operating in Lebanon.

In an MKO congress held recently in the groups Ashraf military camp in Iraq, Prince Bandar donated $750,000 to the exiled terrorist group in the presence of former Iraqi Baath leaders, intelligence officers, several members of al-Qaeda and the armed group Ansar al-Sunna, Baztab Internet site reported.

The Iraqi daily Al-Bayyinah al-Jadidah wrote the Saudi prince has mentioned several conditions for helping the congress of terrorists, including the weakening of the present Iraqi government and the participation of Sunnis and Shiites who supported the former Ba'athist regime in the congress.

Prince Bandar, who served for 20 years as Saudi ambassador to the US, maintains close ties with US President George W. Bush and is known affectionately within that family as "Bandar Bush".

The Saudi prince has also played a pivotal role in developing dialogue and practical cooperation betwen the Saudi and Zionist regimes.

Prince Bandar's support from MKO in Iraq, al-Qaeda both in Iraq and Afghanistan and Fath al-Islam in Lebanon are clear instances of interference in Iraqi and Lebanese internal affairs.

HSH/IS/HAR

© Press TV 2007. All Rights Reserved.

Hillary Clinton: Why is she hated by progressives and right-wingers alike?

They say she is a scheming control-freak who will stop at nothing in her bid to become the first Mrs President. And America's anti-Hillary Clinton alliance is growing by the day.

By Leonard Doyle

Published: 15 July 2007
There is something about Hillary that raises the blood pressure of otherwise easy-going Americans - and they don't need to be Republicans. At a 4th of July barbecue, with the band working its way through the "Battle Hymn of the Republic", I made the mistake of asking a pleasant young woman what she thought of Hillary's chances. Red white and blue fireworks were going off over Capitol Hill, as she morphed into the sort of person who goes on the Jerry Springer Show. She would "never, ever" vote for America's most famous politician, she said. More than 50 per cent of Americans agree with her.

With everyone on tenterhooks over terrorism and the looming defeat in Iraq, there is a febrile atmosphere in the US. Many are taking their anger out on Hillary as she attempts to break through the last remaining glass ceiling. Something called the "Hillary Conundrum" has emerged to cause deep unease inside her party while giving comfort to the Republican party, which by now should be in disarray.

The most seasoned political honchos are uneasy about the candidate who looks like a shoo-in as next year's Democratic nominee for the presidential elections. Hillary has the war chest, a formidable political machine and she is riding highest in the opinion polls.

She is probably the most competent in the field. Virtually everyone agrees that she should have the best chance of wresting the presidency from the Republicans in 2008 and repairing the damage from the wrecking ball (omega) of the Bush presidency. She also has Bill Clinton by her side, a formidable campaigner who took to the road for the first time in Iowa this month.

But behind the scenes, Americans are deeply worried at the prospect of having Hillary (and Bill) back in the White House. While she inspires ordinary women voters, men are not so moved and she has the highest voter-disapproval ratings of any top-tier candidate in the race. She also has a big problem with left-wing feminists.

The writer and director Nora Ephron (You've Got Mail, Sleepless in Seattle) who describes herself as a fully signed up "Hillary resister" seems to be one of them. The resisters are people "who can't stand her position on the war. Who don't trust her as far as you can spit."

They believe, says Ephron, that Hillary "will do anything to win, who believe she doesn't really take a position unless it's completely safe". This is the same Nora Ephron who some years back exclaimed: "I love [Hillary] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her." That was in 1993, when America was another country and Bill Clinton was just settling into his first term in the White House.

A couple of years later, with the Republican attacks on the Clintons in full spate, Ephron spoke to the Wellesley class of 1996 (a girls-only college that she and Hillary graduated from: "Understand," she said then, "every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you."

So how did it all go so wrong for Hillary? How did right- wing America's favourite "femi-Nazi" end up being disliked as much by "progressives" as by conservatives? It's a subject being endlessly debated

"The truth is that Senator Clinton has a woman problem," said Anna Quindlen, a Newsweek columnist. "The fantasy was that the first woman President would be someone who would turn the whole lousy system inside out and upside down. Instead the first significant woman contender is someone who seems to have the system down to a fine art."

Jane Fonda says that Hillary is a "ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina. It may be that a feminist, progressive man would do better in the White House."

For Fonda, the big disappointment was Hillary's 2002 Congressional vote giving George Bush the green light to go to war on Iraq. It turns out that Hillary didn't bother to read the top-secret intelligence report, that she as a senator was given access to before the vote. The six senators who did read it all voted against, because the still-secret report seems to have persuaded them that the case for war was flimsy.

"Women sometimes bend the wrong way just to prove themselves to men," remarked Fonda. "But when we learn to listen to ourselves, that will be revolutionary."

Americans might well ask who is the real Hillary Clinton? Her potential supporters are certainly having trouble working it out. Is Hillary a liberal who has been victimised by a "vast right-wing conspiracy", or a scheming political control-freak who will stop at nothing in her bid to become the first Mrs President?

Hillary's tightly disciplined campaign team point out that for every Fonda or Ephron, there are thousands of women, neither feminist nor left wing who really admire her. She was the top choice of 42 per cent of Democrat women voters in a recent poll and is far ahead among independent voters.

The pollsters, hot-dog turners, political strategists and armchair pundits all agree that Hillary has a more than 80 per cent chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But can she win the election they ask, or is she going to bring more heartache to the party, just like John Kerry last time around?

Everyone has a different reason for predicting failure. There's the "political baggage" theory, which holds that she is fatally tainted by the scandals of her first stint in the White House. The "revolving door" theory says Americans are sick of alternating Bush-Clinton dynasties. The "woman as commander-in-chief" theory predicts that Americans obsessed with terrorism want a man to do their bombing. And there is the issue of Hillary's frighteningly high "negatives" which Gallup recently put at 50 per cent.

Many of those who are worried about global warming and America's imperial overstretch hope that Al Gore, who continues to maintain he will not run, will enter the race at the last minute. Bob Borosage is one of those. A veteran of many elections, he ran Jessie Jackson's presidential campaigns in the past, he is an organiser for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. At a reception for high-rolling donors to the liberal cause, he said he would prefer it if Al Gore won the nomination.

"Gore has every chance of becoming president," he told me, "but if he dares to enter the race, Hillary will pluck his eyes out with her talons."

This is the other part of the "Hillary conundrum". She is widely perceived as a ruthless campaigner. Her campaign team, which calls itself "Hillaryland", is notoriously secretive and disciplined.

Borosage was waiting for Hillary to arrive at his annual Take Back America conference, a kind of global gathering for left-wing Americans. It was being held in the Washington Hilton hotel, known locally as the Hinkley Hilton, after John Hinkley's attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1993 - but more of that later. The hotel has just been bought by the basketball player "Magic" Johnson and is where some of the biggest political gatherings take place in the capital.

Soon Hillary would arrive and sweep down The President's Walk, a corridor in the Hilton that leads to the main conference room where 3,000 people were waiting. The corridor is lined with daguerreotypes and photographs of every US president and their wives, from a 1789 image of George and Martha Washington to the latest incumbents, George and Laura Bush.

Among the images is a photograph of Hillary from 1993 when she and Bill first entered the White House and she

was determined to make her mark as an independent woman. She wore her hair long and un-styled and was much criticised for it. She called herself Hillary Rodham Clinton. Everything she did got America's back up. Before she even opened the door to the White House, she outraged millions of ordinary moms with a catty remark that instead of having a career as a lawyer she "could have stayed home, baked cookies and had teas".

Her name was always a troubling issue. Hillary stunned her friends when she announced on her wedding day in 1976 that she would not be taking her husband's name but would remain Hillary Rodham. Bill's mother wept at the news and a campaign adviser warned presciently "Hillary Rodham will be your Waterloo."

Later on when Bill lost the election to be Arkansas governor she decided she was Hillary Clinton after all. Then within days of his inauguration as president she became Hillary Rodham Clinton and set about installing herself as "co-president". She quickly established herself as the president's most trusted adviser, and plonked herself and her "Hillaryland" entourage in the West Wing, steps from the Oval Office.

With well-chronicled and calamitous effect, Hillary then set about trying and failing to reform America's broken health care system. Meanwhile she bulldozed her way through Washington, making needless enemies for the Clinton presidency in the media and among the capital's power elite.

She created a public-relations disaster on Day One when she gave secret orders to the Clintons' press man, George Stephanopoulos, to have a corridor that gave the White House press corps access to the West Wing blocked off. Unsurprisingly the first 100 days of the presidency were marked by unprecedented hostility from the media.

Bill and Hillary Clinton had come to Washington with the ambition and determination to change the country for the better. But equipped only with a tin ear, when it came to working with people on her own side, Hillary managed to alienate some of the most powerful Democrats, starting with the New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who urged patience in reforming health care.

When Bill Bradley, then a senator, suggested changes to her plan he was dismissed. Forget about it, she said, threatening to "demonise" anyone who stood in her way.

As Bradley recounted later to the author Carl Bernstein: "It was obviously so basic to who she is. The arrogance. The assumption that people with questions are enemies. The disdain. The hypocrisy."

It was at the Washington Hilton on 30 March 1981, that the last assassination attempt on an American president took place on US soil. President Ronald Reagan had just come down the same President's Walk and was leaving the hotel via a side entrance after speaking to an audience of unhappy trade unionists. Six shots rang out as John Hinkley fired his "Saturday Night Special" into the President's entourage. One of the "devastator" bullets, designed to open up on impact, hit the president in the abdomen, almost claiming his life.

Now, some 26 years on, security arrangements for the presidential candidates appear no better organised than they were on that day. A phalanx of secret-service agents protects Hillary Clinton and her main democratic rival Barack Obama, who addressed the same Take (omega) Back America conference the day before.

But despite worries about terrorism - one of Hillary's big campaign themes - security for the candidates seems extraordinarily sloppy. There were no metal detectors, no ID checks or even cursory searches of the audience. The average inner-city American high school has tighter security.

Finally, Hillary arrived. Wearing a silk yellow top and her hair stylishly cut, she made her entrance into the lion's den of liberal Democrats, who are both excited and disappointed with her at the same time. Tightly scripted and brimming with confidence, she launched into 30-minute speech in which she accused the Bush administration of "a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok... of [putting] ideology before science, politics before the needs of families".

The crowd, putting aside whatever doubts it had, stomped and cheered as she blasted Bush. Then she moved on to the subject of the war in Iraq and the mood suddenly changed. It is only this year, as public hostility to the war became overwhelming, that Hillary, once the most enthusiastic backer of the war in Iraq, suddenly changed tack. But while she rescued her candidacy from oblivion, she has not apologised for backing the war in the first place, and remains a big advocate of the so called "War on Terror".

From the stage, she praised the success of the American military in toppling Saddam Hussein and said it was the Iraqi government which was to blame for the current mess.

The audience booed and heckled as she continued: "The American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions that are important for their own people,'' she said, unable to finish her sentence because of a chorus of the uproar.

Members of CodePink, Cindy Sheehan's anti-Iraq-war organisation, so named to mock the US government's colour-coded terrorist warning system, tried to drown Hillary out. But she talked over them and by the time she finished her speech the audience was back applauding her. It was nothing in comparison to the performance of Barack Obama, the day before, when the audience would not let him leave the room after a barnstorming speech.

Some 15 years after Hillary Clinton was first introduced to America, the fascination continues. There are by one count 17,000 websites devoted to her - mostly negative - the most famous of which is the Hillary Clinton Quarterly. Her life, her name changes, her makeovers, her shifting politics and her marriage are grist to the mill of the late-night TV chat shows and morning queues at America's Starbucks. The New York Times last year assigned its crack investigative team to work out how often Bill and Hillary slept in the same marital bed and put the story on the front page.

Following "interviews with some 50 people and a review of their respective activities" the writer discovered that: "Since the start of 2005, the Clintons have been together about 14 days a month on average, according to aides who reviewed the couple's schedules. Sometimes it is a full day of relaxing at home in Chappaqua; sometimes it is meeting up late at night.... Out of the last 73 weekends, they spent 51 together. The aides declined to provide the Clintons' private schedule."

The Clintons have taken over from the Kennedys as the most picked over family in the country. As Jay Leno put it: "According to a new poll, 15 percent of Americans say that Sen Hillary Clinton gives them the creeps. The other 85 percent say she gives them the willies or the heebie-jeebies."

My neighbour in Washington, who spent his 4th of July talking politics at a local barbecue party said: "The only circumstances in which I would vote for Hillary would be if she first divorced her husband."

Another self-confessed Hillary hater explained some of the animosity: "She's hated because she personifies liberalism. It's her politics, her name, her stupid smirks and her pride. Her carpetbagger ways and her socialist tendencies. Oh, and also her husband. It's the insistence that they are always right, even when they are wrong."

This is mild compared to some of the commentary in the media. Take right-wing pundit Ann Coulter - a sometime guest on Good Morning America. She is putting it about that(omega) Hillary Clinton is gay: "I'd say that's about even money on Senator Clinton coming out of the closet in 2008," she says.

As anxious as Democrats are about Hillary, Republicans are increasingly fearful. John Podhoretz, a columnist with the New York Post has written what he calls "a wake-up call to the Right" to keep Hillary out of the White House.

He thinks she poses a huge threat: "I was in conversations with conservatives who seemed confident that Hillary Clinton could not possibly win the presidency," he wrote, "that she was too polarizing, had negatives that were too high, and that she was not likable enough to make it to the White House.

"As I examined these presumptions, they began to seem very hollow to me - and the notion that Hillary was unelectable began to seem like a delusion."

Podhoretz's view is that Hillary can win the election if she gets the votes John Kerry got - 59 million - and Republicans should assume that she can get those votes. "It will take a heroic effort to get more people to the polls," he says. "And right now, Republicans seem more intent on fighting with each other."

Despite the worries of the Left, the Democrats are - reluctantly at times - lining up to back her. Hollywood, a key source of fundraising for Democrats has been difficult to crack. Many have already thrown their lot in with Obama and there is a notable scarcity of star power at Hillary's fund-raising events. Barbra Streisand, known as a friend of Bill Clinton, shared a head table at a recent fundraiser. But even she is hedging her bets and backing three candidates, Hillary, Obama and John Edwards.

"I'm very excited about the strength of the Democratic field for the 2008 presidential election, and I'm looking forward to a lively and healthy primary debate that discusses the key issues facing this country," she said by way of explanation. But in a sign that the tide may be turning in Hillary's favour, she has recently landed some important supporters. Al Sharpton, the radical black firebrand and king of America's racial politics, says he is backing her, after a lengthy campaign to win his support. He took his radio show to the Take Back America conference and cheered her on for attacking the "plantation" politics of Republicans whereby decisions are made behind closed doors. "I absolutely back her," he said.

A major boost to the Clinton campaign came in June when Stephen Spielberg, the biggest Hollywood fish of all came out to endorse her. "I am convinced," said the most successful filmmaker ever, "that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House." The endorsement from one of the most influential people in America (Time magazine named him one of the 100 Greatest People of the Century) was just what Hillary's campaign was looking for.

How soon will the man with a soft spot for stories about ordinary people coming into contact with extraordinary beings shoot an advertisement for Hillary? Spielberg may be the one to ease the worries of millions of Americans who so viscerally dislike her. s

Hillary Clinton is just an old hippie at heart. Once a make-up free lawyer, accessorising with over-sized glasses, before falling for a man with political plans even larger than her own hair. Then meeting his mother. It is thought that Bill's mum, Virginia Kelly, groomed Hillary from the start. Apparently the immaculately fashion-conscious Kelly was shocked at how plain her future daughter-in-law was. And so Hillary's makeover began. During her husband's presidential campaign, Hillary scraped her hair back into one of her many hairbands and wore muted suits - ever the supportive, yet subservient wife (at that stage).

Once in the White House, friends, and no doubt her teenage daughter, advised her to take more of an interest in fashion. She experimented with Oscar de la Renta and a little known conservative Washington designer brand called Tamotsu. The First Lady also courted Ralph Lauren through charity work, but try as she might, she never looked polished. Even designer Carolina Herrera - a favourite of the current First Lady, Laura Bush - says simply that Hillary "never found her way". Websites were dedicated to the growth and ever-changing style of her hair, while the cruel American press nicknamed her "sausage legs" and "your thighness".

It is no wonder, then, that Hillary fails to have a sense of humour about it. On her recent presidential campaign trip to Iowa, she complained to the crowd that the press make too much of her appearance and clothing. When one journalist asked what she was wearing to one press event, Hillary's PR snapped, "What's it look like she's wearing? It's a white jacket. Just like I'm wearing a black shirt, and you're wearing a pink one."

Yet suddenly, the one-time First Lady, sometime first lady president, is looking immaculate. There are rumours of $1,000 haircuts and a $2,000 make-over from Barbara Lacy, a Hollywood make-up artist, and it has been money well spent. Yet the ever-present trouser suit is going nowhere and she adapts it for the audience. New York - dark suit and Bruno Magli heels (serious); LA - bright suit and flats (fun); Deep South - earth tones, no jacket (one of you).

Hillary treats clothes like a costume and changes them as often as her character. She wants to be taken seriously as a political figure and not as a fashion figure, but for once designer Donatella Versace has a point: "I can understand (trousers) are comfortable but she's a woman and she is allowed to show that. She should treat femininity as an opportunity and not try to emulate masculinity in politics."

* Journalist, author and socialite Tina Brown said her support of Hillary Clinton "went wobbly" when she backed the war in Iraq, but she otherwise admires her. "There is nobody with her depth and grasp; she's so well-informed. And what I love about her is she's so tough. This is a woman who never sleeps, who's had everything thrown at her, who has been so trashed and she has come back. And I do admire that," she admitted.

* Maya Angelou announced her endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president in a video tribute. "I would encourage her to be a long-distance runner. Be in this thing to win," said Angelou. "You've got a lot of help and a lot of people care for you - not just admire you, but really have profound affection for you."

* Actress Elizabeth Taylor said she was donating $2,300 (£1,150) to Clinton's campaign, confessing she admired her vast experience and outspoken nature. In a statement, Taylor said: "I have contributed to Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign because she has a mind of her own and a very strong one at that. I like the way she thinks. She is very savvy and a smart leader with years of experience in government, diplomacy and politics."

* Clinton recruited 'The Sopranos' to help her win votes. The former First Lady poked fun at the recent finale of the mob drama by re-enacting the series climax with her husband Bill Clinton for a light-hearted TV campaign ad. She persuaded 'Sopranos' regular Vincent Curatola to join her. In the spoof, the Clintons, both huge fans of the show, are browsing a menu in a diner - just like Tony and Carmela Soprano were at the end of the TV series - when Curatola, who played mob boss Johnny Sack on the show, walks past and gives the politician a filthy look.

* American rapper, composer and music producer Timbaland hosted a fundraiser for Clinton on the last day of the first-quarter fund-raising period for presidential candidates. The fundraiser was reportedly billed at $1,000 per attendee. According to election figures, Timbaland contributed $4,600 to her campaign.

* Actor Paul Newman and his wife Joanne Woodward both donated $2,000, while 'Walk the Line' star Reese Witherspoon gave $1,000. Chat-show host Jerry Springer added $4,200 to the cause, while singer Nancy Sinatra handed over a modest $200. Other contributors include the actor Edie Falco (who played Carmela Soprano), Playboy founder Hugh Hefner and actor Danny DeVito.

*Singer Barbra Streisand, a friend and supporter of former President Bill Clinton, has previously made contributions to the successful US Senate campaigns of Hillary. This time, the singer gave money not only to the New York senator but to two other would-be Democrat Presidential candidates, John Edwards and Barack Obama. "I'm very excited about the strength of the Democratic field for the 2008 presidential election, and I'm looking forward to a lively and healthy primary debate," Streisand wrote.

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran


· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian

George Bush, right, with Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice
While Dick Cheney, left, favours military threats, Condoleezza Rice, centre, prefers diplomacy. George Bush, right, has sided with Cheney. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP


The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.

At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.

<h3 class="entry-header">Government Secrecy: Decisions Without Democracy</h3> The expansion of official secrecy now poses a challenge to basic democratic processes, argues a new report (pdf) from OpenTheGovernment.org and People for the American Way.

In a highly readable account, the report explains why openness is a virtue, explores how secrecy impedes public deliberation, and considers what can be done about it.

"As Congress and the White House clash over this administration's unprecedented secrecy, Americans need to know the full scope of the problem," said Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org. "It is up to us, with and through our elected officials, to preserve our heritage of open and accountable government."

See "Government Secrecy: Decisions without Democracy," written by David Banisar, July 2007.

Impeachment or War?

Cheney Urges Bush to Strike Iran
By GARY LEUPP

"Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran." That's the headline of a very frightening article by Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in the London Guardian. Sub-heads:

· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out

· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'

What a nightmare Dick Cheney is visiting on our planet! Isn't it time we awaken to the fact that he's a crazed monster egging on a vain, cruel, delusional religious fanatic of a president as he inflicts incalculable suffering on the Middle East, sacrificing American blood and treasure in the process? Of course many of us have awakened to that fact, one reason why 54% of us want to see Cheney impeached. Yet he's still there, operating in his highly secretive fashion, gaining rather than losing influence according to MacAskill and Borger.

"The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months," they write. They cite a "well-placed source in Washington" as stating "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." The source also states, "The balance has tilted [ towards the advocates of an attack on Iran]. There is cause for concern."

Surely that concern is felt among the highest ranks of the military as well as the average citizen whom polls indicate feels no enthusiasm for the planned assault. But Congress has cooperated fully by passing every bill or resolution against Iran backed by the horrifically influential AIPAC lobby. Recall how Nancy Pelosi omitted a requirement for Congressional authorization of any Iran attack from legislation at the Lobby's behest?

The prospect of yet another war-based-on-lies boggles the rational mind. But according to the Guardian, there was a meeting between Bush, Cheney, and Pentagon and State Department officials on Iran last month, and Bush sided with Cheney when the latter "expressed frustration at the lack of progress" on Iran. That is to say, lack of progress in moving ahead with the bombing of Iran. Undersecretary of State Nick Burns, the key State Department official responsible for Iran and an advocate of negotiation, indicated at the meeting that diplomatic talks with Iran would probably continue beyond the end of Bush's term. For Bush and Cheney that is unacceptable, especially because they don't believe the next administration will have the guts to bomb.

Patrick Cronin, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies suggested to the Guardian that Israel is calling the shots. "If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action. The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself." According to the Washington source, the administration is "reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway."

The handwriting is on the wall here. All these reports from unnamed sources about Iranian support for Iraqi "insurgents" of this or that faction. The display with much fanfare of captured weapons in Iraq identified as of Iranian manufacture. All these confident allusions to a nuclear weapons program Iran denies exists, for which the IAEA finds no evidence. All these assertions that Iran plans to cause a second Holocaust through a nuclear attack on Israel. Norman Podhoretz's Wall Street Journal op-ed piece praying for the U.S. to bomb Iran. John McCain's crooning "Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran." The disinformation, distortion, even vilification of Iran in popular culture. The propaganda barrage is reminiscent of that which preceded the criminal invasion of Iraq.

The uniform support for keeping an attack "on the table" among nearly all presidential candidates. The incessant arm-twisting of governments to back sanctions on Iran. The abuse of the IAEA, forced by a majority vote to find Iran "in non-compliance" with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The huge naval buildup in the Persian Gulf. The provocative arrest of Iranian diplomats in Iraq, protested by the Iraqi puppet government itself. The demand that Iran renounce its legal right to enrich uranium---a demand designed to be rejected and to constitute a pretext for regime change. The handwriting is written in big conspicuous letters on the wall.

That doesn't mean the attack cannot be stopped. How to do so? By not giving Cheney/Bush the remainder of their term. If 54% want Cheney impeached, he should be impeached. NOW, before he's allowed to further terrorize the world. Cheney impeachment hearings will weaken Bush and increase the percentage of Americans (now 45%) favoring the president's own impeachment. All that is required here is political will in a Congress that has seen its approval rating plummet due largely to its failure to stop the administration's war. Those wishing to reverse that have an easy option: vote to impeach. And while you're at it, vote to insist on Congress's exclusive power according to the Constitution to declare war.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_al...lifornia_se.htm