Last Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney, an experienced hunter, was
hunting quail with several well-heeled Republican acquaintances,
including Texas lawyer Harry Whittington. The two men had been drinking
throughout the afternoon, and at one point began to quarrel about a
business venture of mutual interest which had gone awry. The argument
became heated. Whittington sneered at Cheney?s declining public
standing and the most recent disclosure, by Cheney?s former chief of
staff Lewis Libby, that Libby had leaked classified information to the
press at Cheney?s direction. When Cheney responded with an
obscenity-laced remark, Whittington, a man who knows where many bodies
are buried in Texas politics and business, suggested he might arrange
for certain facts of a sensitive nature to become public knowledge.
Cheney, enraged, stormed away, then turned, lowered his shotgun and
discharged it, hitting Whittington?s face and upper body.
Is that what happened on February 14 at the Armstrong Ranch in southern
Texas? We have no idea, but it is no less likely than the official
explanation. And the ?angry drunk? scenario would more plausibly
explain both the long delay in reporting the event?which made it
conveniently impossible to perform the blood alcohol test that would
otherwise be routine in such an incident?and the obvious disarray in
the White House for days afterwards.
For all the media attention to the Cheney affair, it is remarkable that
with virtual unanimity the official claim that the shooting was
accidental has been uncritically accepted and reported as though it
were established fact, despite the lack of any serious investigation or
public presentation of the actual circumstances in which the vice
president of the United States shot and seriously wounded another man.
Until the migration of one of the shotgun pellets lodged in
Whittington?s body triggered a heart attack on Tuesday, the incident
was largely dismissed with joking references to the ?gang that
couldn?t shoot straight? or criticism of a poor White House
communications strategy. Even after the shift to a more serious tone,
the major daily newspapers and the television networks continue to
refer to the incident as an ?accidental shooting,? without either
interviewing eyewitnesses or investigating any alternative theory of
what took place.
With Cheney?s interview Wednesday evening on Fox television, two
conflicting accounts of the shooting have now been given. Kathleen
Armstrong, daughter of multimillionaire ranch owner Anne Armstrong, a
former ambassador in the Reagan administration, contacted a Corpus
Christi, Texas newspaper Sunday to report Whittington had been shot
accidentally. She put the responsibility for the incident on
Whittington, indicating that he had wandered off the line maintained by
his hunting partners and failed to announce himself when he returned
from retrieving a quail.
Three days later, Cheney abandoned the ?blame the victim? story and
told Fox interviewer Britt Hume that he was the one responsible because
he had pulled the trigger.
Cheney also admitted to having a drink earlier that day, although he
said it was only a single beer at lunch, five hours before the
shooting. He denied that any alcohol was being consumed on the hunt.
Cheney made an even more damaging admission, remarking that he
?didn?t know until Sunday morning that Harry was going to be all
right.? This throws a different light on the decision not to make
public any information about the shooting for nearly a full day.
During that period, when Cheney and his aides could not be sure whether
the vice president might be facing involuntary manslaughter charges,
there were undoubtedly discussions about how to handle the
story?perhaps even consideration of whether someone else might have
to take the fall for the shooting. Only after Whittington was out of
immediate danger was the press contacted with the news that Cheney had
been the shooter.
The police were also kept away during the first critical half-day.
Secret Service agents contacted the local sheriff?s department
immediately to report a shooting accident, but there is no indication
that they supplied any details or identified the shooter.
A captain in the sheriff?s department went to the ranch Saturday
evening but was told the victim had been transported to a hospital in
Corpus Christi. He left without interviewing any eyewitness.
Two local policemen also arrived at the ranch, after learning of the
shooting, but they were denied admission by ranch security guards, and
went their way. Finally, at 8 a.m. Sunday?after Cheney had been
assured that Whittington would survive?the vice president was
interviewed by a sheriff?s deputy and made his first declaration that
he had pulled the trigger.
What is known about the circumstances of the shooting cast some doubt
on the accident theory, especially given Cheney?s long experience as
a hunter and the relative rarity of such incidents?only a handful
during the most recent Texas hunting season.
According to the account Cheney gave to Fox, Whittington was partially
obscured because he was standing in a gully lower than the ground on
which Cheney was standing. This suggests that Cheney, in order to hit
Whittington, would have had to fire his blast either level or slightly
downwards?a strange angle for shooting at a flushed quail rising into
the sky.
Press accounts suggest that Whittington was hit by as many as 150 to
200 pellets, meaning that he received nearly the full charge of
birdshot from a single blast. This fact and the nature of the wounds
seem to confirm the reports that Whittington was standing about 30
yards from Cheney when the vice president opened fire: any closer, and
the wounds would have been far more serious; much further away, and
dispersion would have caused many of the shot pellets to miss.
There are other aspects of the incident which appear to undercut the
?pure accident? theory. How could such an accident occur when the
vice president was accompanied by his normal entourage of Secret
Service and medical personnel?
The role of the Secret Service is particularly puzzling: if Whittington
was in range of Cheney?s gun, then Cheney was likewise in range of
Whittington?s. How could the Secret Service have been unaware that a
man armed with a loaded shotgun was approaching the vice president from
an unexpected direction? If they were aware of Whittington?s
movements, how could they have allowed the vice president to open fire
on him?
Whittington?s turn for the worse on Tuesday morning raises the
possibility that he could suffer long-term physical consequences from
the shooting, or even death. In either event, Cheney could be liable
for criminal charges involving at least negligence and recklessness, or
even involuntary manslaughter, a felony charge never before brought
against so high-ranking a public official. His continuation in office
under such circumstances would be in question.
The press, however, has been virtually silent on this possibility. It
has focused almost entirely on the subsequent handling of the public
relations fallout, not on the underlying event in which a man was
nearly killed by the vice president.
In a rare exception, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, in a
commentary Wednesday devoted to the exposure of illegal NSA spying,
remarked in passing: ?Nobody died at Armstrong Ranch, but this
incident reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy?s delay in informing
Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile
accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969. That story, and dozens of others
about the Kennedy family, illustrates how wealthy, powerful people can
behave as if they are above the law.?
The comparison is an apt one, not only in its implicit questioning of
the credibility of the account given by Cheney, but in its reference to
the seeming immunity of the top echelons of American society from all
normal legal and social constraints. There is indeed one law for the
masses of ordinary people and quite another for the financial and
political elite. If anything, this is more the case in the far more
socially polarized America of 2006 than it was nearly four decades ago.
Cheney?s four-day silence demonstrated the vice president?s
arrogant indifference to public opinion. His eventual decision to give
an interview with Fox News expresses both contempt for the public?s
right to know and personal cowardice?Cheney is willing to be
questioned only by a network which has repeatedly demonstrated a
slavish political loyalty to the Bush administration and its
ultra-right policies.
The rejection of accountability?for the 9/11 attacks, for the lies
which were used to engineer the war with Iraq, for the failures in the
response to Hurricane Katrina, for the devastating social and fiscal
impact of Bush?s tax cuts for the wealthy?is the hallmark not only
of an administration, but of the ruling elite as a whole.
In that sense, Cheney?s conduct at the Armstrong Ranch and its
presentation by the media provide a vivid example of the social
relations that prevail in contemporary America, ruled by a financial
oligarchy that feels itself as far above the common people as the
Russian Tsar or the French aristocracy before 1789. There is one set of
laws, one set of prerogatives for the modern equivalent of the ruling
estates of the feudal past, and another for the rabble.
He sure did yammer a lot, didn't he? Tom
SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "Mike Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> We have no idea
> >
> > I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
> >
> > Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
> >
> > Mike Smith
>
> Well done
>
> Isn't it amazing how much effort they spend proving it to us over and over.
> It's unfortunate that they are so talented at generating a lot of words to
> compensate for their lacks.
SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "Mike Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> We have no idea
> >
> > I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
> >
> > Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
> >
> > Mike Smith
>
> Well done
>
> Isn't it amazing how much effort they spend proving it to us over and over.
> It's unfortunate that they are so talented at generating a lot of words to
> compensate for their lacks.
[email protected] wrote:
> >
> Is that what happened on February 14 at the Armstrong Ranch in southern
> Texas? We have no idea, but it is no less likely than the official
> explanation. And the ?angry drunk? scenario would more plausibly
> explain both the long delay in reporting the event?
What happened Feb 14? I thought the Vice-President shot Whittington
Saturday.
> , would have had to fire his blast either level or slightly
> downwards?a strange angle for shooting at a flushed quail rising into
> the sky.
Have you ever been Quail hunting? You'd better get your shot ASAP or
those Quail wil be pooping on your truck before you can regroup for
that second shot. AND as far as walking up behind someone who is drawn
and ready to shoot, NOT a good plan. We walk side by side. If the birds
flush too far to the right, the man on the left knows not to shoot.
Whittington would have been better off to have came in directly behind
Cheney and ruined the shot all together by telling Cheney where he was.
If you don't know how to hunt, stay home!
>
> Press accounts suggest that Whittington was hit by as many as 150 to
> 200 pellets, meaning that he received nearly the full charge of
> birdshot from a single blast. This fact and the nature of the wounds
> seem to confirm the reports that Whittington was standing about 30
> yards from Cheney when the vice president opened fire: any closer, and
> the wounds would have been far more serious; much further away, and
> dispersion would have caused many of the shot pellets to miss.
30 yards is about the limit of the effective range of my 12gauge, a
bird gun has a much smaller charge. Birds are easier to kill than
turkeys and geese. A light bird load at 30 yards apparently will not
immediately kill a man either. If I ever shoot a man, on purpose, it
will be at close range, inside my own home and the full charge of a 12
gauge magnum. Otherwise, I will take every precaution to NOT shoot
anyone, ever. Don't come into my home in the middle of the night
un-announced :-)
> The role of the Secret Service is particularly puzzling: if Whittington
> was in range of Cheney?s gun, then Cheney was likewise in range of
> Whittington?s. How could the Secret Service have been unaware that a
> man armed with a loaded shotgun was approaching the vice president from
> an unexpected direction? If they were aware of Whittington?s
> movements, how could they have allowed the vice president to open fire
> on him?
How many guided hunts do you suppose the President, and others who are
protected by the secretive service, attend every year? If the man
you're protecting is hunting with others, I'd say that you should do
your homework on the others attending the event. If there's a problem
with anyone who will attend this event, disarm them before it starts or
send them a nice letter requesting that they disregard their invitation
to hunt with the VIP.
>
> Whittington?s turn for the worse on Tuesday morning raises the
> possibility that he could suffer long-term physical consequences from
> the shooting, or even death. In either event, Cheney could be liable
> for criminal charges involving at least negligence and recklessness, or
> even involuntary manslaughter, a felony charge never before brought
> against so high-ranking a public official. His continuation in office
> under such circumstances would be in question.
For a hunting accident at 30 yards? NO jury down here in the South
would convict on a shot that from that distance during a Quail hunt.
>
> In a rare exception, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, in a
> commentary Wednesday devoted to the exposure of illegal NSA spying,
> remarked in passing: ?Nobody died at Armstrong Ranch, but this
> incident reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy?s delay in informing
> Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile
> accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969. That story, and dozens of others
> about the Kennedy family, illustrates how wealthy, powerful people can
> behave as if they are above the law.?
P-HA-HA-HA-HA-Ha-Ha-ha-ha-ha,
Was Cheney having an affair with Whittington? Try to cover it when the
horrible accident occurred? Sounds like maybe a little transferrence of
YOUR imagination to me. Do you write for the National Inquirer? I can
imagine the headline now,
Broke Back Quail Hunt, Slow and painful murder to avenge a
jilted lover.Hee-hee.
This is still a woodworking forum, right? I've got to get back to work.
Thanks for the laugh.
Tom in KY,, If you ain't from the wood, Don't come to the wood! ie. I
don't want you hunting with me, any accident would obviously be the
fault of the conservative bastard in the group.
P.S. Do you think Cheney's NRA accidental shooting insurance will pay
off? If he didn't have a bird stamp on his license, his NRA card was
probably expired too! P-HA-HA-HA-hee-hee-hoo
Yeah, almost as stupid as the Vince Foster "conspiracy" the wingnut
media used to drag down the gravel road behind a pickup.
I don't know about the rest of this stuff but I got ten bucks says
alcohol/sh!*-facedness is the root of it all.
I haven't hunted since I was a teenager/early twenties on the farm. My
friends and I never had hunting classes/training and never did anything
as STUPID or IRRESPONSIBLE as this. Couse then again we were SOBER.
I find it interesting that Dick saw the need to mention he had one beer
at lunch. Yeah, right. And you put off your interview with the police
how long?
Mike Smith wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > We have no idea
>
> I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
>
> Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
>
> Mike Smith
i too am sick and tired of the liberals crying conspiracy here!
Cheney is a smart man. noone, NO ONE, not even a yankee as dumb as ted
kennedy would EVER try to kill someone with 28 guage bird shot at 30
yds.
what a bunch of idiots! quail rarely fly "straight up". they are
ground-dwellers and never fly any distance , they simply bolt at low
altitude about 50 yds or so and land again.
david
www.dcgphotography.com
Of course the story is doctored. Full of lies, if you will. It's a
troll.
dnoyeB wrote:
> Mapanari wrote:
> > Mike Smith <[email protected]> wrotenews:atp8v197hatfdoq18e4fpninkgkfc180sn@
> > 4ax.com:
> >
> >
> >>On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>We have no idea
> >>
> >>I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
> >>
> >>Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
> >>
> >>Mike Smith
> >>
> >
> >
> > The fact that this story has any legs at all goes to show have far the
> > liberals have dumbed down everything in America.
> >
> > Are the liberals really that desperate to lose another and yet another
> > electoin in an unended stream of defeats?
> >
> > What next? 28 Guagegate?
> >
>
>
> I have to disagree with you. Im a liberal and I don't feel desperate at
> all. If you had said democrats rathar than liberals then your statement
> would be true. In other words this is about politics not policy.
>
> The story is probably doctored. Everything from the White house is
> doctored. However, I don't think there is much blood in this turnip to
> be squeezing it so hard...
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> "Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
> man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
Not really. But it does that various seeming right-wingers are kinda
hyper-sensitive about one of "theirs" getting treatment similar to what
they deem appropriate to the opposition.
Grow up, and get over it- these folks have made it a part of the
territory. Cheney has only compounded his own problem.
You forget, in all this liberal-labeling, that the center is where the
votes are. You might say "It's the center, stupid!" Not the neo-cons or
other wingnuts.
J
>what a bunch of idiots! quail rarely fly "straight up". they are
>ground-dwellers and never fly any distance , they simply bolt at low
>altitude about 50 yds or so and land again
You've obviously never seen a quail before.
In any case, it's disgusting how the news media and the
sound-bite-specialist Democrats are chomping on this little incident
like blood-crazed sharks. Disgusting, but not surprising. The instant
I heard about this, I thought, "Oh, lord, here it comes...." Sigh.
Ron M.
LIBERALS have smaller penisses... and Repugnicans are dimwit-pillocks.
Cheney and your JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF burned 3000 of you and nuked the
towers:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
and you are falling for the PROPAGANDA that was carefully engineered to
divide you and to divert attention.
Your media LIES habitually and CENSORS facts and HIDES history... and
thats because of the LOGIC OF CAPITALISM and not the fault of any one
person.
US COWARDS do not stand up to lies and deceit and FEAR FEAR the loss of
petroleum.. and standard of life... and will losse it ANYWAY.
Go on, HATE EACH OTHER.
We Asians love to see that.
DO NOT EVER wake up to your FBI-CIA-NRO-NSA-spook-MURDERERS secert
government.
Remember:
who lives by the sword, will die by the sword.
And:
Who is not against me ..
is with me.
Joshua from Nazareth
Who are not with us,
are with the terrorists.
Bush-Junta,
(sounds like anti-christ? .. )
NEVER SHOW THESE VIDEOS to your neighbors, nor dare to discuss them.
http://www.question911.com/links.php
NEVER read this book: SYNTHETIC TERROR 911 WEBSTER TARPLEY
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/07/317436.pdf
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:58:54 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >David wrote:
> >
> >> I thought that Whittington hadn't announced his return to the line from
> >> retrieving a bird. yes? no? I'm not a hunter and am just repeating
> >> what I remember from the news yesterday.
> >>
> >> And of course Cheney is ultimately responsible, which he already admitted.
> >
> >I look at it as being just like a car accident: there are always
> >degrees of fault. Cheney ran the light, and Whittington didn't look for
> >crazies while approaching it.
> >
>
> Given the story that Whittington hadn't announced his return to the line
> (as he should have),
If the hunters were standing in a line then it would be hard to shoot
the newly arrived person without shooting unacceptably close to
the ones who were already in the line.
> the analogy is more appropriate that Whittington ran
> the light and Cheney was the driver passing the intersection when
> Whittington ran the light. Driver who hits the guy doesn't feel any better
> that he is not at fault, believing there is probably something he could
> have done to swerve, stop, or avoid the accident.
>
More like Cheney was waiting at a red light and when the light
turned green pulled out and hit a vehicle that had stopped in
the intersection. Cheney pulled the trigger when there was a
man in front of his gun. He has no trouble admitting fault.
I don't like the guy at all, but I don't find fault with his actions
after-the-fact.
> It was an unfortunate hunting accident, mistakes were made and events
> converged such that someone was hurt.
Yes, and the right person to determine when and what to say to
the press was Whittington or his family.
--
FF
NWO is bullshit invented by US elites to bum-steer the
Patridiots
To get USA back to No1.
The best way is to indict Cheney for doing 911 in The Hague, and the
american people making sure everyone of these bastards is brought
there.
The argument that there are other criminals in the world in need of
prosecution is easily countered with:
First clean your own home before you ask others to clean theirs.
Therefore the USA-citizens need to do it.
Just endorse the ICC in The Hague.
Doing that would be the first step. Because SIMPLY THE FACT THAT US
CITIZENS ACCEPT THE HAGUE will be the message (to act upon).
q.e.d.
change of subject.
The BEST COUNTRY ON EARTH... the United States of ... Ah ... Armaged,
ah, Aggress.., ah Angst, ah Atrocities, ah, ah America... yeah that's
it.
Americans!! Americanos!
Muchas Gracias for your kind attention.
http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/abug-f21.shtml
US media drops Abu Ghraib torture issue
By David Walsh
21 February 2006
Horrifying images of systematic US military abuse of Iraqi detainees at
Abu Ghraib prison were aired last week on Australian television and
also published at Salon.com. The images of prisoners, naked, strapped
to apparatuses on the floor, hanging upside down, wounded, threatened
by snarling dogs, masturbating for their abusers, draped in women?s
underwear, forced to sodomize themselves, arranged in the most
degrading and painful positions, as well as photographs of dead bodies
and blood-smeared cells, have been in the possession of the US military
for several years and have been systematically suppressed. The Pentagon
has resisted efforts to have the photographs and videos made available
to the public.
And for good reason. The Abu Ghraib images demonstrate, in the first
place, the depraved and sadistic character of US treatment of
detainees. More than that, they help give the lie to the propaganda of
the Bush administration and the media about the motives for the Iraq
war and occupation and its essential character. How could such
barbarism be associated with the effort to spread ?democracy? in
the Middle East, to ?liberate? the Iraqi people? The conduct by the
US military prison guards is a telltale sign of a brutal, colonial
occupation. The occupying power resorts to terror and criminality to
suppress a population that opposes and despises its presence.
After a flurry of nervous commentary February 16, the day following the
Australian broadcast, the Abu Ghraib horrors have for all intents and
purposes been dropped by the American media. A few pious editorials
appeared over the weekend (for example, in the New York Times,
Philadelphia Inquirer and Baltimore Sun), none of which carried much
weight or conviction.
The Times editors commented that the pictures ?are a reminder that
the Bush administration has yet to account for what happened at Abu
Ghraib. No political appointee has been punished for the policies that
led to the atrocities. Indeed, most have been rewarded.? The
newspaper concludes on a pathetic note, urging Republican Sen. John
Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and one of
those leading the effort over the past two years to hide the images
from the American public, to ?keep his promise to dig out the truth
about Abu Ghraib.?
Of course publications like the Times, the Inquirer and the Sun are
hopelessly compromised in raising the Abu Ghraib issue by the fact that
they defend the occupation and subjugation of Iraq. Their position is
self-contradictory and untenable: they support the crime, but object to
certain of the criminal methods. This explains the unconvincing and
half-hearted nature of their criticism. They will editorialize limply
once, perhaps twice, then go silent again.
The US military responded to the appearance of the new images as any
powerful and thoroughly guilty party would: it denied, stonewalled,
dismissed the images or blamed the abuses on subordinates. Pentagon
spokesman Bryan Whitman said, ?There aren?t new allegations;
they?re old allegations. These aren?t new photos; they?re old
photos.? Whitman claimed that the original Abu Ghraib photos,
published in April 2004, had provided the impetus for the US military
?to take a look at our detention operations in a very broad and deep
fashion. And these abuses that have occurred have been thoroughly
investigated.?
Last Friday, before Congress, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
repeated the claim that the new images of abuse and torture were ?old
news.? He declared, ?I?m told that these photographs that are
coming out now are nothing more than the same things that came out
before, if not identical of the same type of behavior. That behavior
has been punished. The Department of Defense, from the beginning of
this conflict, has had a policy that prohibits torture. It is not
permitted, and we do not today. The people are trained to avoid it. And
there?s no question, but that there was conduct that was improper,
and people were court-martialed, and people have been sent to prison,
and people have been reduced dramatically in rank, officers have, and
punished for the behavior that was unacceptable.?
This statement is simply one lie or half-truth piled upon another.
First of all, no one in the media will challenge the very framework of
Rumsfeld?s comments. He and a select group of the political elite
have seen the images, while deliberately preventing the rest of the
American population from viewing them. He is speaking about suppressed,
banned material. It is not for Whitman and Rumsfeld to rule on their
content. Decisions to conceal proof of their own crimes?and then
declare their conduct irreproachable, without any independent party
able to make an evaluation?are made by police-state regimes, not
democratic ones.
In any event, the claim that the guards at Abu Ghraib acted against
Defense Department orders is a lie and everyone knows it. Torture and
abuse of prisoners have become official US policy under the Bush
administration.
In December 2002 Rumsfeld personally approved of a list of techniques
for the detention camp at Guant=E1namo Bay, Cuba, that included putting
prisoners in ?stress positions? for four hours, hooding them and
subjecting them to 20-hour interrogations, ?fear of dogs? and
?mild, non-injurious physical contact.? The list was so severe that
military officers complained and the defense secretary was obliged to
order a high-level review of interrogation policy. In April 2003
Rumsfeld approved a new list, which included the use of at least six
techniques?including the use of dogs.
In August and September 2003, General Geoffrey Miller, the officer in
charge at the Guant=E1namo camp, was sent by Rumsfeld to Iraq with
orders to increase the brutality of the military?s treatment of
prisoners there, to ?Gitmo-ize? conditions. On one of these visits,
Rumsfeld accompanied Miller. On September 14, 2003, General Ricardo
Sanchez, at the time the top military commander in Iraq, issued an
order authorizing a number of techniques, including ?presence of
military working dogs? which will ?exploit Arab fear of dogs while
maintaining security during interrogations.?
?The use of dogs, however,? as we noted recently on the WSWS,
?was only one of a number of new methods introduced into Iraq, some
explicitly approved and some implicitly condoned by Sanchez, Rumsfeld
and Miller. Stripping prisoners naked and forcing them to wear
women?s underwear?part of a general policy of deliberate sexual
humiliation?were both practiced in Guant=E1namo Bay before being
transferred to Iraq. Miller was specifically cleared of responsibility
for the use of these methods in a probe into abuse at Guant=E1namo Bay,
on the grounds that they were approved military practice.?
(See http://wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/mill-j19.shtml ?Miller
takes the Fifth: US general withholds testimony in Abu Ghraib abuse
trial?)
The interrogators and guards were simply unleashed on the Iraqi
prisoners (most of whom were guilty of nothing whatsoever) and
encouraged to ?break? them by any means necessary. If some of the
guards ?improvised,? it was improvisation from a script written by
Rumsfeld, Miller and Sanchez.
The Abu Ghraib images are documentary proof of US government policy.
Here is the policy made manifest, in the form of humiliated, bruised,
tortured and dead human bodies.
The very fact that thousands of images were recorded of the
mistreatment and torture, complete with grinning or nonchalant guards,
is one proof of the official character of the conduct at Abu Ghraib. No
one thought he or she was breaking the rules; on the contrary, the
personnel had been instructed in these techniques.
As for the claims by Whitman and Rumsfeld that the crimes have been
investigated and the guilty parties have been punished ... a handful of
wretched, backward prison guards have been jailed. Neither Rumsfeld,
Miller or Sanchez has ever been the subject of an investigation, much
less a criminal charge. As Amnesty International notes, zero is the
?[n]umber of high-level military or civilian leaders held accountable
for policies or practices that lead to abuse of detainees and deaths in
custody.?
The practices in the Iraqi detention centers and elsewhere no doubt
continue. The occupation hasn?t changed its character. The US forces
are hated more than ever by the Iraqis. Former army interrogator Tony
Lagouranis, for example, in a segment of PBS?s ?Frontline?
program broadcast last October, described his experiences in Iraq from
January 2004 to January 2005, well after the first Abu Ghraib photos
appeared and the military promised to mend its ways. He commented,
?The worst stuff I saw was from the detaining units who would torture
people in their homes. They would smash people?s feet with the back
of an axe-head. They would break bones, ribs, you know. That was
serious stuff.?
Amnesty International in April 2005 reported that it continued to
receive reports of abuse of detained Iraqis. According to testimony
received by the group, ?US interrogators have participated in
questioning prisoners held at the Iraqi Interior Ministry, a location
at which detainees have repeatedly alleged torture and
ill-treatment.?
In any event, if the photographs and videos are ?more of the same,?
then why is the US government so ferociously resisting their release?
Defeated in court numerous times over the issue, the Bush
administration continues to appeal a federal judge?s decision last
September ordering their release. The government and military are
fearful because the images expose the actual, ugly and brutal face of
the US occupation of Iraq, the face that the administration, in
coordination with the media, is attempting to keep as much as possible
from the American public.
The US government claims that it opposes the images? release because,
in the words of State Department legal advisor, John Bellinger, they
will fan ?the flames at a time that sentiments on these issues are
raw around the world.? No doubt Arab and Muslim public opinion is an
issue, although the US could hardly be viewed less favorably than it is
at present. Probably of more concern to the administration is
preventing the reality of the war from making its way to the population
in the US. Why else so assiduously suppress battlefront images and
photographs of coffins containing the American dead returning home?
Moreover, even the claim by Rumsfeld and Whitman that these are simply
?old photos? is false. As Mike Carey, executive producer of the
?Dateline? television program in Australia that exposed the new
images, told the media, ?Well, it seems to us that there?s a
quantum leap in the abuse, in the potential abuse: corpses, really
despicable sexual humiliation. As far as I understand, these have not
been investigated.? One of the corpses is a man who died during a CIA
interrogation; no CIA employee have ever been charged in relation to
crimes at Abu Ghraib.
Olivia Rousset, reporter for ?Dateline,? told Amy Goodman of the
Democracy Now! radio program: ?Obviously, a lot of it [the new
imagery] is the same as what was released before, from the same series
of events, the same torture and abuse, but there are new cases of abuse
that haven?t been seen before and some corpses of people who have
been either killed in riots or killed from mortars going over the wall
into the prison. But, to me, it sort of shows that there was pretty
widespread abuse going on.?
The lack of outrage in the American media about the Abu Ghraib torture
and murder, and the concealment of the images, is entirely predictable,
but nonetheless revealing. (Of course, the right-wing media is up in
arms?that the material surfaced at all. The thugs at Fox News, the
Wall Street Journal editorial page, the ultra-right talk shows, web
sites and so forth believe that the American military should be allowed
to carry out its crimes unobserved and undisturbed.)
What would be the response if the shoe were on the other foot, and
hundreds or thousands of US military personnel or civilians had been
systematically abused, tortured and, in some cases, murdered? One can
only imagine the blood-curdling headlines for days, weeks and months,
backed up by threats and plans for war! Sadism, blood and death in an
Iraqi prison, however, counts for very little in the US media, which is
a wholehearted accomplice in the invasion and occupation.
As a footnote, it almost goes without saying that leading figures in
the Democratic Party have had nothing to say about the new revelations
of crimes at Abu Ghraib. A search of the Democratic Party National
Committee?s official web site returns the revealing result: ?No
pages were found containing ?Abu Ghraib photos.?? No press
release was issued by the Democrats. No statement can be found by John
Kerry, Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean?s ?Democracy for America.?
These too are accomplices.
See Also:
The Abu Ghraib photos and the anti-Muslim ?free speech? fraud
http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/abug-f17.shtml
[17 February 2006]
Australian TV airs more photos of US torture at Abu Ghraib
http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/ghra-16f.shtml
[16 February 2006]
One of the persistent ideological teachings in the United States
is that our society is notably free of ideological teachings.
Ideology is something imported from alien lands
or brewed at home by allegedly sinister groups, as in
"Communist ideology."
But in fact, we Americans are ideologically indoctrinated
into certain precepts about patriotism, elections,
world leadership, the self-made rich, and all that garbage
about the free market.
We also entertain notions about class, race,
and gender relations and about the democratic
distribution of power in our pluralistic society.
Well, most of these kinds of beliefs are themselves ideological.
Yet they're widely circulated and remain largely free of critical
examination, being seen as representing the natural
order of things.
These ideologies don't just emerge spontaneously and
full blown, they're disseminated through
the dominant institutions of society. They
serve as instruments of social control.
q.e.d.
YEY!!
its out! out! out! out!
The first MAINSTREAM show is talking about 911
being a USA Military inside job!!
SHOWBIZ TONIGHT
Sheen Responds to Criticism; Erica Jong Dishes on New Book, Martha
Rumors;
Seth Green Involved in Multiple Projects
Aired March 24, 2006 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND
MAY
BE UPDATED.
A.J. HAMMER, CO-HOST: Does Martha Stewart think sex writer Erica Jong
ruined her marriage? I`m A.J. Hammer in New York City.
BROOKE ANDERSON, CO-HOST: And why you may not see Jodie Foster in a
movie
for a long time. I`m Brooke Anderson in Hollywood. TV`s only live
entertainment news show starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HAMMER (voice-over): On SHOWBIZ TONIGHT, they`re the controversial
comments that have got everyone talking coast to coast.
CHARLIE SHEEN, ACTOR: Taking over four commercial airliners and hitting
75
percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory.
HAMMER: Actor Charlie Sheen`s startling allegations of a 9/11
government
cover-up. SHOWBIZ TONIGHT brought you the story first, and tonight,
Charlie Sheen is speaking out again.
SHEEN: I have to tip my hat to CNN to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT.
HAMMER: Plus, what do you think? Is he onto something? Are his claims
outrageous? The overwhelming response flooding our inbox from you.
Plus, a film 25 years in the making. Tonight, SHOWBIZ TONIGHT has your
first report from the set of "Chapter 27." It`s the new movie about
Mark
David Chapman, the man who shot and killed John Lennon. And SHOWBIZ
TONIGHT goes one-on-one with Jared Leto, the guy who`s playing the
former
Beatle`s killer.
GREG KINNEAR, ACTOR: I`m Greg Kinnear, and if it happened today, it`s
on
SHOWBIZ TONIGHT.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HAMMER: Welcome to Friday night. I`m A.J. Hammer, live in New York
City.
ANDERSON: And I`m Brooke Anderson, live in Hollywood. And look who`s
talking again. Charlie Sheen, A.J.
HAMMER: That`s right, Brooke. The star of one of TV`s biggest hits,
"Two
and a Half Men", back on the radio today, and he was talking 9/11.
Now, ever since we first reported Sheen`s controversial comments he
made
on the Alex Jones radio show about a possible government cover-up of
what
actually happened on September 11, the story has exploded. We have been
overwhelmed by the thousands of passionate e-mails that we`ve been
getting. We`re going to read some of them, a lot of them throughout the
next hour.
Well, today Sheen called in once again to the Jones show. He had more
to
say. In just a moment I`ll be speaking with Alex live. But first, let`s
listen to what Sheen had to say today about 9/11, about his critics and
about SHOWBIZ TONIGHT.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SHEEN: I had a sense that this thing was going to get hot. I didn`t
realize that, as you say, it was going to go supernova.
HAMMER (voice-over): Charlie Sheen`s comments on a possible 9/11
conspiracy have definitely gone supernova. And this star`s earning both
criticism and praise.
Calling into Alex Jones radio show today, Sheen was sure to heap his
own
praise SHOWBIZ TONIGHT for being first major news outlet to bring
Sheen`s
9/11 comments to light.
SHEEN: I have to tip my hat to CNN, to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT, to A.J. Hammer
for
having the courage, for having the guts, for having the wherewithal to
give someone like myself, someone like you the actual time and the
focus
to examine these issues. And this is the most attention in mainstream
coverage that this topic has ever received.
ANDERSON: The response we got today to the incredible story SHOWBIZ
TONIGHT broke last night.
HAMMER: SHOWBIZ TONIGHT has been on top of this fire storm since it
began
Monday when Sheen called Alex Jones` radio program to speculate that
maybe
we weren`t hearing the real story behind 9/11.
SHEEN: It seems to me like, you know, 19 amateurs with box cutters
taking
over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets,
that feels like a conspiracy theory.
HAMMER: But speaking on the radio today, an angry Sheen went after
those
who, responding to his 9/11 statements, are now attacking his wild and
controversial past.
SHEEN: And a majority of them, in fact 90 percent of them, were
attacking
me personally, were attacking my credibility. I am an American citizen
that loves my country. And as a citizen with that -- with my passion
for
this great country, I demand that I be challenged on the facts, not on,
you know, immature behavior from 20 years ago. That if they continue to
attack me personally, it only gives credence to our side of the
argument.
HAMMER: Sheen is making crystal clear that this is something he`s going
to
continue to speak out about.
SHEEN: People want the truth. They want the truth. And what`s been
offered
to us resembles nothing of the sort.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HAMMER: Joining me live tonight, the guy who Charlie Sheen has been
speaking with on the radio. I`m talking about Alex Jones, who`s joining
me
live from Austin, Texas.
Alex, welcome back to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT.
ALEX JONES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you for having me.
HAMMER: Appreciate you being here.
So let`s talk about the fact that people are going after Charlie. We`ve
gotten a lot of e-mails where people are attempting to attack his
credibility. That`s the natural thing that`s going to happen. They`re
talking about things that happened a long time ago. What about this? Is
his past at all a liability, as you see it, or are these attacks
basically
going to backfire?
JONES: Let me just say this. CNN had a poll a year ago; 90 percent on
CNN
on the Anderson Cooper show believed the government`s covering up 9/11
and
may be involved. Your new poll five minutes ago before show time, 81
percent of over 20,000 respondents, 81 percent agree with Charlie
Sheen,
as I told you.
And they`ve had many other polls with other news services and we get
the
same type of numbers. On my own talk show and other talk shows I`ve
done,
we get the same type of response. You have a minority that won`t face
the
facts.
Listen, Charlie Sheen is the first person to go public. He`s just the
first Hollywood person that has the courage to do what he`s been doing.
We
have former Reagan administration officials. We have former Bush Senior
officials. We have the current chief economist from George Bush`s
current
administration who quit just a couple years ago and has gone public.
And
he says the government carried out the attacks. Defense ministers,
members
of British...
HAMMER: Alex, as a Hollywood guy, you know, with a sordid past that he
owns up to, and it`s well behind him, it`s going to be an easy attack
point. So what I`m asking you is...
JONES: What he says is don`t believe me, check out the facts. Go look
at
the evidence. Don`t believe the attack dogs. Just -- it isn`t about
Charlie Sheen or Alex Jones or A.J. Hammer.
HAMMER: Right.
JONES: It`s about NORAD standing down. It`s about bombs in the
buildings.
It`s about Pentagon documents saying they wanted to carry out these
attacks and blame it on foreign enemies.
This is all public. That`s why all these physicists and politicians and
people and congresswomen, Cynthia McKinney, went public three years
ago,
saying there was a cover-up, very suspicious, called for a real
investigation. There are hundreds of prominent people. They just never
get
attention.
HAMMER: It`s getting a lot of attention now. And Charlie Sheen came on
your show the other day. And he was back on today. We know what`s going
on
here at CNN and at SHOWBIZ TONIGHT because of the thousands of e- mails
that we`ve been getting.
So let me ask you this. What do you think now that there is this sort
of
forward momentum? What do you think is going to happen now that hasn`t
happened before as a result of this new level of attention?
JONES: Well, I mean, Americans love celebrity, and the average American
is
obsessed with it more than anybody in the world, except maybe the
Japanese.
And he selflessly sacrifice -- is sacrificing himself to be attacked
just
to get people talking and looking at it, because he told me he loves
his
children, just like I do. Listen, I get death threats over this stuff,
but
ideas are bullet bulletproof.
And the new world order better stop carrying out terror attacks. We`ve
caught them over 200 times in the last 100 years, western governments
doing this. Hitler does it; the British do it; the Russians did it.
Governments do this. They -- and I`m not saying the whole government.
Very
small criminal black op -- black world is what they`re called --
operators, are carrying this out. That`s the facts.
Please, go investigate it, ladies and gentlemen. You will discover the
truth. Look at America. It`s turning into a police state, putting
cameras
in school bathrooms.
HAMMER: Let`s -- let`s bring it back to what`s happening this weekend,
what you and I have been talking about. And yesterday on this program,
you
told me Charlie Sheen not alone among Hollywood celebrities. You told
me
that you -- you wouldn`t name names. You`re in touch with quite a few
celebrities who feel the same way that Charlie feels about what may
have
actually happened on 9/11.
So my question is, do you think since we`ve had this uproar this week
and
Charlie is taking this risk and speaking out, we`re going to be hearing
from more celebrities who will go public?
JONES: Well, I mean, the majority of the American people support Mr.
Sheen
despite the attack dogs. He`s winning the war of polls. And literally
almost everyone I talk to in Hollywood, very prominent people. I have a
lot of friends in Hollywood. And they`ve all sought me out. I`m not
some
Hollywood person.
HAMMER: Is anyone -- is anyone indicating to you that they may actually
come forward? And I`ll ask you yesterday and I`m going to ask you
again,
can you tell us a couple of the names of those people?
JONES: No, because I have -- they have confidence in me, and I`m not
even
pushing them to go public.
HAMMER: OK. Do you think they will go public?
JONES: Yes, I think you`re going to see -- yes, I think you`re going to
see more people. And some of them may be people I don`t even know.
Listen,
everybody in Hollywood I talk to, pick a name, any name. I`ve talked to
hundreds of them. OK? They seek me out; they`re aware of it. They talk
about it. They`re constantly...
HAMMER: So you clearly have a lot of supporters, of course, and you`re
very familiar with this end of it. We`ve gotten the thousands of e-
mails
this weekend. Not all of them, Alex, are glowing, obviously.
JONES: But your poll -- your poll is 81 percent.
HAMMER: I`m with you on that. I`m with you on that. I don`t know at
this
very moment we`re going to get into that in just a second. But of
course,
when this happens we do get e-mails, saying, oh, you know, we think
that
people like Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones are whack jobs.
Are you at all concerned that the louder you raise your voices the
wackier
you might seem to those people?
JONES: You know what? You know what? No, I`m not worried. Because we
have
put the facts out there. And I challenge them instead of using little
buzz
words and junior high mentality propaganda to actually go look at my
claims.
Is a current Bush administration official, has he quit and said the
government ran the attacks? Yes. Dr. Morgan Reynolds say that, chief
economist Department of Labor.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the father of Reaganomics, the father of it who
was at the highest levels of the treasury in the Bush administration,
has
he gone public saying he questions 9/11?
Sir, the American people are going to learn the truth. Nothing can stop
the truth from coming out on 9/11. And we`re in danger of the new world
order carrying out more terror attacks to keep this world empire.
HAMMER: Alex, I`m out of time once again. But what I appreciate is that
you`re encouraging people, above all else, to seek out the facts. And
that`s what I think you`re doing an excellent job at.
JONES: You need to go InfoWars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. I`m risking my
life. We`re doing this for the American people and our children and our
future. And thank you for having the courage to let me come on. God
bless
you.
HAMMER: Alex Jones, live from Austin, Texas. Thank you.
And what should we make of all this conspiracy theory stuff? Well,
that`s
what we`re wondering. Stay with us, because coming up at 32 past the
hour,
we`ve got the reporter who wrote a fascinating story this week in "New
York Magazine" all about these conspiracy theories that are out there.
You
definitely want to be here to hear what he has to say about what
Charlie
Sheen has been saying.
ANDERSON: And over the past few days we have been getting a tremendous
response to Charlie Sheen`s startling comments. Our e-mail inbox has
been
flooded. And we want to read a few of your e-mails tonight in response
to
our question of the day. Charlie Sheen speaks out. Do you agree with
his
assertion there is a government cover -- cover-up of 9/11?
A.J. from Pennsylvania, no relation to A.J. Hammer, writes, "God bless
Charlie Sheen for having the courage to stand up and be counted in
stating
that the evidence shows 9/11 was an inside job."
Dan from Massachusetts agrees: "The bottom line is that the government
lied to us. They continue to lie to us, and no one is holding them
accountable."
But Nick from Virginia doesn`t buy the conspiracy theories: "The
government is made up of Americans. I don`t know anyone who would want
a
terrorist attack on American soil."
You can keep voting at CNN.com/ShowbizTonight. Send us e-mail,
[email protected]. We are going to read more of your e-mails later
on
in the show.
HAMMER: Well, actually, this has a lot of people wondering if any of
this
9/11 conspiracy stuff is really legit? Coming up, an in-depth,
objective
view from someone who`s researched both sides of the story. He`ll join
me
live.
Plus we also have this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JARED LETO, ACTOR: Some people were upset and will be upset by the film
being made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Jared Leto plays Mark David Chapman, the man who murdered
John
Lennon. And we have your very first reports from the set of the new
movie.
It`s in the interview you will see only on SHOWBIZ TONIGHT, coming up.
HAMMER: Also, does Martha Stewart think one of the most famous sex
writers
of our time broke up her marriage? Find out, when SHOWBIZ TONIGHT goes
one-on-one with author Erica Jong. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAMMER: Back to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT. I`m A.J. Hammer in New York. This is
TV`s
only live entertainment news show.
Tonight we have a "SHOWBIZ Sitdown" with Erica Jong. She is best known
for
her explosive, ground breaking 1973 novel "Fear of Flying". Her
graphic,
no-holds-barred account of a woman`s sexual fantasies turned her into a
feminist icon. Jong has a new book out. It`s called "Seducing the
Demon:
Writing for My Life". There it is right there. Erica Jong joining me
live
in New York.
Thanks for being here.
ERICA JONG, AUTHOR, "SEDUCING THE DEMON": Great to be here.
HAMMER: A fired up show tonight.
JONG: It really is exciting.
HAMMER: We were speaking a few moments ago about Charlie Sheen coming
forward this week with his notion that the government may actually have
been behind September 11 and the September 11 attacks and the
conspiracy
theories in general surrounding 9/11.
What do you make of an actor of his stature coming out publicly like
that?
JONG: I think he`s a brave man to even question this aloud in an
environment where anyone has been saying that anyone questions the
government is a traitor.
So Charlie Sheen has done his homework, and he`s asking questions. He`s
speaking truth to power, which is a brave thing to do.
Look, the young people in my family, my nephews, for example, have been
saying for the past three, four years that we are not learning
everything
about 9/11 that we`re meant to learn. And specifically, they`ve been
saying that if you read all the different web sites, if you`re really
careful, what you discover is that a lot of facts don`t add up.
HAMMER: And even if a modicum of what is being put out there, all these
conspiracy theories, even if a piece of that is true, we have a
responsibility, don`t you think...
JONG: To investigate it.
HAMMER: ... to be asking the questions and to be doing the
investigation?
JONG: I think it`s very patriotic to investigate it. Throughout all of
history the basic premise of tyrants has been -- dictators, shall we
say.
And I think it`s fair to say that George W. Bush is a dictator. Has
been
if you tell the people they have an external enemy, they`ll follow you
anywhere. That was what Goebbels told Hitler to do. Back in ancient
history, that`s what Roman emperors did.
HAMMER: That`s a pretty strong statement for you to say, though. Are
you
at all afraid of a backlash? I mean, seriously, a lot of people are
afraid
to come out on television. You just called Mr. Bush a dictator.
JONG: I think that he is a dictator. Most of the people do not believe
that this country should be a theocracy. Most of the people in this
country do not want to be in Iraq. Most of the people in this country
are
pro choice. And yet, he blithely goes on ignoring the will of the
people.
I call that a dictator.
But as far as 9/11 is concerned, it`s a great gambit to tell the
people,
you have an external enemy. The external enemy is terrorism. We have a
war
that will go on for centuries. It will go on till the end of time.
Well,
that`s a great way to scare people.
HAMMER: Sure.
JONG: And to make them believe whatever you say. And Bush is not the
first
to do it.
HAMMER: No.
JONG: Throughout history, people have been doing that in order to fool
all
of the people all of the time. So I think that Charlie Sheen is really
patriotic and brave to ask these questions. I don`t know what the
answer
to these questions is.
I read the article in "New York" magazine. And I think just asking
questions is brave and patriotic.
HAMMER: And as I mentioned, we`ll be speaking with that author from
"New
York Magazine" coming up later in the show.
JONG: Well, I think it`s great that you`re investigating. I don`t know
what the answer is. I don`t know if we`ll ever know. I don`t know the
answer to the Kennedy assassination. But I think that it`s a job of
writers and of talented people to investigate this stuff.
HAMMER: Well, you are a talented writer. And that is why you are here
with
us tonight, among other reasons. Your new book, "Seducing the Demon",
is
out.
One of the things that you raise in this book, which is something that
I
guess has followed you around for a little while, Martha Stewart
accused
you of stealing her husband.
JONG: Well, hardly.
HAMMER: But it`s...
JONG: It`s what kids today call a hookup.
HAMMER: But she did make that accusation. You didn`t steal her husband,
did you?
JONG: Yes, she`s been making it for years and years. No, I did
something
really stupid at the Frankfurt book fair. And what happens on the road
should stay on the road, as the musicians say. I did something really
stupid, but hey, it was a quarter century ago. And it was really dumb,
and
I apologize.
HAMMER: And I understand you wrote this book as much for your fans as
you
did for yourself.
JONG: I wrote the book because it`s really the story of how I survived
as
a writer. And for all my writing students out there and all the people
who
want to know, who come up to me after readings or signings and who say,
"How did you do it? How do you survive as a writer?"
HAMMER: It`s all right here.
JONG: It`s "Seducing the Demon."
HAMMER: All right. Well, Erica, thank you for sharing your thoughts on
some touchy subjects with us. And your book is good (ph).
JONG: Thank you.
HAMMER: Appreciate it.
JONG: Thank you, A.J.
HAMMER: And you can find Erica`s new book, "Seducing the Demon: Writing
for My Life". It`s in stores now.
ANDERSON: More on the story SHOWBIZ TONIGHT first told you about, actor
Charlie Sheen accusing the government of a 9/11 cover-up. Coming up, we
investigate how legit Sheen`s conspiracy theory really is.
HAMMER: Also, a new movie about the man who murdered John Lennon, Mark
David Chapman. Actor Jared Leto costars with Lindsay Lohan in the film.
We`re going to get the first reports from the set from Jared Leto in an
interview you`ll only see on SHOWBIZ TONIGHT.
ANDERSON: And Seth Green live. He does "Family Guy", "Robot Chicken"
and,
of course, Dr. Evil`s son in "Austin Powers". We`ll ask Seth if there`s
another "Austin Powers" flick in the works. That`s live, coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAMMER: You know Seth Green from 20 films, including "The Italian Job",
"Without a Paddle" and of course, as Dr. Evil`s son in "Austin Powers".
He`s also the voice of the awkward son Chris in FOX`s often raunchy
animated show, "Family Guy", which by the way, is the only show ever to
be
resurrected from cancellation after huge DVD sales brought it back to
life. Seth also voices dozens of characters in his own animated Cartoon
Network creation, called "Robot Chicken".
Welcome back to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT, live in New York, Seth Green.
SETH GREEN, ACTOR: Thanks.
HAMMER: We were talking about Charlie Sheen and all the comments, and I
just have to get your take. You seemed a little blown away that he has
come forward.
GREEN: Well, it`s impressive. I mean, it`s impressive for somebody in
any
kind of high profile position to challenge the government when you`re
getting average people, you know, slandered for any kind of opposition.
HAMMER: Would you do ever something like that?
GREEN: I usually wouldn`t. I keep my politics to private conversations.
But I appreciate the fact that he`s prepared and coming out and saying
this is something -- and I like that he says if you want to investigate
anything, investigate the facts. Don`t try to turn it around. I mean,
which is what`s been happening so much with this administration.
Anybody
who challenges anything with a reasonable challenge gets slandered and
criticized for being -- for opposing, you know?
HAMMER: We like talking to you about how we know you best. Of course,
people really best know you as Dr. Evil`s son in "Austin Powers".
GREEN: Yes.
HAMMER: Among other things, but you are the voice of the animated
characters on "Robot Chicken" as well as "Family Guy".
GREEN: Yes.
HAMMER: So are you kind of hiding from the camera? I mean...
GREEN: No, it just so happened. I mean, "Family Guy" is a job I got
almost
eight years ago. And we were three years of the air. And then "Robot
Chicken" is just a show that I developed with a friend of mine and
because
we don`t have a lot of money and because I know a lot of the jokes
because
I`m involved in the writing process. I just -- I`ll perform them as a
shorthand, you know?
HAMMER: Now, one of the things that "Robot Chicken" does is you sort of
spoof or go after, in a comedic way, certain celebrities who are out
there. Anything that`s going on out there in celebritydom right now
that
you can`t wait to sort of attack and how you will go about that?
GREEN: Our second season, which starts April 2, by the way, we`re all
over
everything that happens in pop culture.
HAMMER: Give me an example.
GREEN: We take on Lindsay Lohan. We take on Burger King. We take on
George
Bush.
HAMMER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
GREEN: NO, Brooke and Myers (ph), actually. It`s really funny.
HAMMER: What do you take her on for?
GREEN: She -- well, there`s just this whole thing with the teen
starlets
and silly competitions and writing songs about each other`s boyfriends.
And our nation obsession with these 16- and 17-year-old girls that I
just
find completely ridiculous.
But it speaks to kind of the nation`s distaste for politics, that
everyone`s so fascinated by Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie having a baby
instead of that we`ve been at war for four years and killing hundreds
and
hundreds of soldiers. For what? So Halliburton can have a bigger oil
contract?
HAMMER: And you guys are able to have some fun with that?
GREEN: Yes. We`re just silly. Our show is silly, and we`re not
political
at all. Our George Bush stuff is like George Bush light saber fighting
Abe
Lincoln. You know? That`s the kind of political commentary.
HAMMER: And hilarity ensues. So the "Austin Powers" movies, you did the
three that were out there.
GREEN: Yes.
HAMMER: What`s the story? Are we going to see another one?
GREEN: I`m the last to know.
HAMMER: Has Mike Myers talked to you at all?
GREEN: Not at all. I haven`t talked to Mike in, like, two years,
actually.
He, from my understanding, is doing the Keith Moon story. So I don`t
know.
HAMMER: He is doing that.
GREEN: I don`t know. I mean, "Austin Powers" is the kind of thing that
we
all have a great time doing it.
HAMMER: Right.
GREEN: And if there`s a script to do, I`m sure we`ll do it.
HAMMER: And if one`s done, you will for certain be a part of it?
GREEN: It`s a blast to do. I wouldn`t turn it down if it was worth
doing.
But you know, whether or not -- we did three good ones, and I`m amazed
that that happened.
HAMMER: You`ve got to be happy with those. Seth Green, thank you for
stopping by, as always. Come by any time.
GREEN: I will.
HAMMER: You can catch Seth Green in the new "Robot Chicken" DVD, which
hits stores...
GREEN: March 28.
HAMMER: ... on Tuesday. You can catch the new season beginning April 2
on
the Cartoon Network.
ANDERSON: Seth is excited.
OK. The inside story on "Inside Man" star Jodie Foster. Why you may not
see her in another movie in awhile. That`s coming up.
ANDERSON: Also, Jared Leto plays Mark David Chapman, the man who
murdered
John Lennon. And we have your very first reports from the set of the
controversial new movie in an interview you`ll see only on SHOWBIZ
TONIGHT. That is coming up.
ANDERSON: And it`s the story that SHOWBIZ TONIGHT brought to you first,
Charlie Sheen`s shocking comments about a 9/11 government cover-up.
Coming
up, we investigate whether they are legit.
SHOWBIZ TONIGHT will be right back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAMMER: Welcome back to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT, for a Friday night. It is 31
minutes past the hour. I`m A.J. Hammer in New York.
ANDERSON: I`m Brooke Anderson in Hollywood. And you`re watching TV`s
only
live entertainment news show.
HAMMER: Brooke, a controversial new movie is going to be released all
about Mark David Chapman. He`s the man who, of course, shot John Lennon
to
death 25 years ago. Jared Leto, the actor who plays Mark David Chapman,
is
going to speak with us in a moment. There`s a bit of a backlash against
the movie. Did it affect the filming? We`ll find out from Jared
himself,
coming up in just a few.
ANDERSON: Very interesting. Also, A.J., a chat with another talented
actor, Jodie Foster. She stars in the new thriller "Inside Man." We
will
talk with her about that film and also about her family, if she thinks
her
two sons will follow in her acting footsteps. That`s coming up in just
a
few minutes.
HAMMER: Looking forward to that.
And now we have more on Charlie Sheen and his 9/11 conspiracy theories.
We`ve been all over this story, Sheen`s suggestion that the government
may
be covering up what really happened on September 11th.
Sheen was on the Alex Jones Radio Show again today talking about it.
And
just this week, "New York" magazine is out with a story on all of the
9/11
conspiracy theories that are floating out there. It`s called "The
Ground
Zero Grassy Knoll."
Contributing editor Marc Jacobson wrote the piece. Marc`s joining us
live
on SHOWBIZ TONIGHT. Marc, thanks for stopping in.
MARC JACOBSON, "NEW YORK" MAGAZINE: No problem.
HAMMER: It`s quite an explosion that has happened here this week as a
result of Charlie Sheen`s comments on this radio show on Monday. You
started working on this story a few months back. People weren`t really
talking about this.
JACOBSON: Well, no, the people that are interested in it were talking
about it, but everybody else thought I was out of my mind.
HAMMER: So do you think, now that you have a big Hollywood star who is
taking an undeniable risk by coming forward, do you think this is going
to
give it legs and suddenly people are really going to start paying it
more
attention?
JACOBSON: Well, I think it would be better if it was Martin Sheen
rather
than Charlie Sheen, because he`s the president, right?
HAMMER: Sometimes we wish.
JACOBSON: Well, you know, but, I mean, it`s just one of those kind of
things where do you this work and nobody really cares, but then Charlie
Sheen is interested, so then everybody is interested, and that`s fine.
You know, obviously, this material needs to be looked at again, because
there`s been a lot of problems with the 9/11 Commission report. People
feel it`s not adequate. Most of the people who had lost people during
that
time feel it`s not adequate.
And it`s just I think we`re living in a truth vacuum, in a sense, that
any
time there`s a truth vacuum, these ideas -- because people are smart.
They
put two and two together. Sometimes they get five; sometimes they get
12,
but sometimes they get 11, like 9/11, but sometimes they get four.
And the thing is that, if you have a situation where the so-called
facts
are covered up and aggressively covered up, then you`re going to get
these
conspiracy theories.
HAMMER: And it has happened throughout history. And credibility is an
important fact here. Charlie Sheen really did apparently do his
homework.
He does know a lot about it. But, of course, people are now going after
him because of his sordid past. I want you to listen to what he had to
say
about that on the radio today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE SHEEN, ACTOR: I am an American citizen that loves my country.
And
as a citizen with my passion for this great country, I demand that I be
challenged on the facts, not on, you know, immature behavior from 20
years
ago. That if they continue to attack me personally, it only gives
credence
to our side of the argument.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAMMER: So what do you think about that? Do you think that, you know,
his
credibility really is at stake here, or is that going to backfire on
people who are -- it`s kind of like apples and oranges to me.
JACOBSON: It doesn`t have anything to do with each other. You know,
it`s
like -- so he was an ardent customer of Heidi Fleiss. I mean, I can`t
see
how that affects his ability to analyze this material.
HAMMER: No, and people who are smart enough, I think, to think about,
you
know, "OK, if he`s coming forward with legitimate points, then why
should
we worry about what his past was"?
JACOBSON: I think it`s just stupid.
HAMMER: You paid attention to some of what Charlie has had to say this
week about what he thinks happened on September 11th. You did the
research
for your article. Do you think he has some legitimate points? And what
are
they?
JACOBSON: Well, I think he`s doing a reasonable rendition of what other
people that believe in this stuff say. And when he says he has his
facts
straight, I mean, I think the facts are in question.
I mean, I think, just because you know what it says on all of these
different Web sites doesn`t mean that that`s necessarily the fact.
That`s
the reason why the United States government, with their endless amounts
of
resources, let us down by not doing the proper work on the 9/11
Commission. That`s a real problem.
HAMMER: Well, one thing that is interesting -- you know, not just your
article also bringing some of these theories to light, but the Internet
now has changed everything. It`s all over the Internet. It`s all over
the
blogs. It seems like this is now an unstoppable movement that`s getting
some new juice this week from Charlie Sheen. Do you think this is at
all a
good thing?
JACOBSON: Well, I think that people might want to -- well, people might
want to consider the Kennedy assassination thing, if they had the
Internet
at the time. You can imagine how that would have exploded.
But the thing is, like, if you remember the Oliver Stone movie, which
was
the "JFK" movie, it didn`t get made until more than 20 years after the
Kennedy assassination. Obviously, things are moving quite faster now.
And,
yes, the Internet spreads these things. The down side of it is, it
spreads
a lot of rumors.
HAMMER: That`s true. And it can certainly perpetuate some things that
are
not true. And, Marc, I appreciate -- it`s really a good read in the
magazine. I appreciate you dropping by to talk about it.
OK. Marc Jacobson, joining us from "New York" magazine.
And we`ve been asking you to vote on our SHOWBIZ TONIGHT "Question of
the
Day, asking: Charlie Sheen speaks out: Do you agree there is a
government
cover-up of 9/11?
Well, here are some of the e-mails that we`ve received. We heard from
Fernando from Florida. He writes, "Sheen is correct to pursue and
expose
the matter to all because the rabbit hole is deeper than we all think."
We also heard from Barbara in Missouri. She writes, "I don`t believe
the
government was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks, and I think that
anyone that does is stupid."
We heard from Menelik in Texas who writes, "Of course, the government
covered up 9/11, just as the past history of what they have concealed."
Keep voting at CNN.com/showbiztonight. If you have some thoughts you
want
to share with us, join in the thousands. [email protected] is our
e-mail address. We`ll read some more a bit later in the show.
ANDERSON: Changing the subject here. Jodie Foster has been making
movies
for 40 years, four decades. Can you believe it? Well, we couldn`t,
either.
The Oscar-winning actress still packs a punch on the big screen. She
stars
in the new Spike Lee film "Inside Man." It`s opening today.
She plays a powerbroker with a hidden agenda in a tense hostage drama.
SHOWBIZ TONIGHT producer Jenny D`Attoma sat down with Jodie to talk
about
the new role and her secret to success.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JODIE FOSTER, ACTRESS: Your honor, you know about this hostage
situation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s it to do with you?
FOSTER: Well, I need to be assured that certain interests are
protected.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pay attention to what I say. Recently I planned and
set
in motion the plans to execute the perfect bank robbery.
FOSTER: Look, Detective, there are matters at stake here that are a
little
bit above your pay grade.
JENNY D`ATTOMA, CNN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT PRODUCER: This is a great role. I
mean, when you read the script, you wanted to work with Spike Lee?
FOSTER: I wanted to work with Spike Lee, and I wanted to work with
Denzel
Washington, and, of course, Clive Owen, this new, wonderful actor on
the
scene. It was just a dream for me. It was a no-brainer. It was like a
two-second decision.
So it stays locked or disappears?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Precisely. Can you make that happen?
FOSTER: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hope so. I have to say, I can`t help but be
skeptical.
FOSTER: Whoever gave you my number got the same deal. Clearly, they
must
have been satisfied.
She`s a sort of an interesting, powerful character, because the other
guys
are powerful with guns, and macho, and, you know, beard growth and all
that.
And she`s powerful in a different way. She doesn`t need to raise her
voice, and she`s quite breezy and witty, and she`s amused by it all,
and
smiles through everything, and says please and thank you, and gets to
wear, you know, fabulous outfits, and have a fake tan, and white teeth,
and then, during the week, you know, kills people.
D`ATTOMA: What is the secret for you, as an actress, having longevity
in
this career, making good choices? Is it difficult?
FOSTER: You know, it just has to be about knowing yourself. And, you
know,
what`s right for me isn`t right for other people. And I have a very
different way of wanting to live my life.
Like now, I mean, after being 40 years in the business, I make maybe
one
movie every three years. And it`s got to be something that really gets
me
out of the house. It`s got to be something that`s worth it.
And I`ve also learned that, you know, I need to work with a director
that
I respect and that I really admire and like. And if not, I get unhappy.
When I`m unhappy, I`m not good.
D`ATTOMA: And I would imagine being a mom, I mean, that just has to add
to
the mix, too.
FOSTER: Yes, it does. And it makes the choice of making a movie a
really
big choice, because you know you`re going to have some sacrifices from
them, so it has to be worth it.
D`ATTOMA: Do you see any sort of acting inclinations in either of your
boys?
FOSTER: No, my older one`s a bit of a comedian, so I don`t know. I
think
that`s going to be a part of his life. I don`t necessarily think he`s
necessarily going to be an actor, but I think that he`s going to have
--
he has sort of that natural ability that I think he`s going to be able
to
get what he wants from pretty much anyone in the business world or
whatever it is that he chooses.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Proud mom there. Jodie Foster also told SHOWBIZ TONIGHT she`s
looking forward to reuniting with Robert De Niro, this time directing
him
in "Sugarland." The two first worked together in the 1976 film "Taxi
Driver." That film that brought Foster her first Oscar nod.
HAMMER: Do not go anywhere, because in just a few moments we`re going
to
get a review of Jodie Foster`s new movie, "Inside Man." That`s coming
up
in "Picks and Pans."
ANDERSON: Plus, a big day for Drew Lachey. It`s a safe bet it`s even
more
thrilling than when he won "Dancing with the Stars." We will tell you
what
he has to celebrate tonight.
Also, coming up...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JARED LETO, ACTOR: Some people were upset and will be upset by the film
being made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAMMER: Jared Leto sits down with SHOWBIZ TONIGHT to talk about his
role
as Mark David Chapman, of course, the man who killed the late John
Lennon,
and the protests that have surrounded the filming of the movie.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAMMER: Welcome back to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT, with the star of the upcoming
movie, "Chapter 27." This is about the man who shot and killed John
Lennon.
Jared Leto plays Mark David Chapman in the film. It`s a role that he
gained 62 pounds for. He`s working on losing that weight now by
fasting.
Leto was nine years old when John Lennon died. And I asked him if he
remembered where he was on that day, when he stopped by our studios
earlier this afternoon for a "Showbiz Sitdown."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HAMMER: Do you have a memory of that day?
LETO: You know, I do. My brother, we`re very close in age. He was
delivering papers in the morning. And he brought home a stack of
papers,
and I remember he showed it to my mother, and, you know, she was in
tears.
I think it`s a moment that, like you say, everyone -- it kind of
affected
the entire world, in a way.
HAMMER: Yes, and it`s a real reference point for anybody who was alive
at
the time, was old enough, as I said. And now you`re in a movie playing
a
guy who killed John Lennon. And it`s your job as an actor to get into
that
guy`s head. So, at any point in the course of filming this role, did
you
have any sense of why he actually did this?
LETO: Well, it`s a very interesting question. And we get into a lot of
that in the film.
But, you know, you can put people in similar circumstances, whether
they
have an abusive or unhappy childhood, whether they grow up and
experience
things that a lot of us wouldn`t like to have experienced, and they
turn
out perfectly fine and don`t end up murdering someone.
But Chapman was a very, very complex individual. He was very lucid,
intelligent. He could sit here, and have an interview, and be charming.
But he was, I believe -- he was schizophrenic. He was a sociopath. He
was
a narcissistic psychopath. The list is long of the things that describe
who he was. But, you know, "Why?" is a very hard question to answer.
HAMMER: You were joined in the film by Lindsay Lohan. She certainly
probably garnered a lot of attention just for being there, because the
paparazzi follows her everywhere. You, yourself, I`m sure, have had
experience with that throughout your career.
LETO: Sure.
HAMMER: Was that at all a distraction, with the cameras constantly
hanging
around?
LETO: You know, it was -- I would call it not a distraction, but pain
in
the ass.
(LAUGHTER)
HAMMER: To be perfectly honest.
LETO: You know, because here I am -- I mean, I gained 62 pounds for the
part. I`m very focused and in character. And I`m looking up trying to
communicate with another character in the film, and right behind them
there are probably 100 or more guys with cameras and long lenses, you
know, 20 or 30 feet away from us, clicking away.
And the thing is, you know, everybody`s got to do a job. They`re there
to
do their job and make some money and whatever. But we were trying to
focus
and concentrate, so it was challenging, but, like we said when we were
making the movie, it should be challenging.
HAMMER: Right, it`s part of the gig.
LETO: It`s part of the gig, yes.
HAMMER: Well, I know music is your first love, as many films as you
have
done and as long as you`ve been acting, I read that music is your first
passion.
LETO: Well, I don`t know about my first -- I just feel very proud of
the
things that I`ve done, the movies that I`ve made. And I`m very proud of
the music that I make, as well.
HAMMER: With the band, 30 Seconds to Mars.
LETO: Yes, with 30 Seconds to Mars.
HAMMER: So people who are not familiar with your music, they may have
seen
you in your films -- what is that music?
LETO: 30 Seconds to Mars is something -- a lot of people don`t know
that
other side of my life. It`s rock. It`s something that`s atmospheric and
dynamic, and it`s a lot of energy.
And we`re very proud that people have been able to finally, after all
of
these years, start looking past the stereotype of this example that`s
been
set before us of this horribly, embarrassingly bad cliche of actors who
seem to be good at only making bad music, for some reason.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HAMMER: Jared mentioned 30 Seconds to Mars, that`s the name of his
band.
He and the guys are on tour now. And that`s their new CD.
ANDERSON: Why don`t we get tonight`s "Hot Headlines" now? And for that,
we
go to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT`s Sibila Vargas. She is joining us live here in
Hollywood.
Hey, Sibila.
SIBILA VARGAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Brooke.
Well, Randy Quaid wants more money for his small role in "Brokeback
Mountain." Quaid has sued the producers, saying they told him it was a
low-budget movie with no prospect of making any money and paid him a
low
salary. He isn`t saying how much he got, but he wants $10 million in
damages.
Well, the WB has censored the first episode of its new show, "The
Bedford
Diaries," but the network is showing the uncensored version on its Web
site. The WB cut scenes of two girls kissing and another risque scene
that
we can`t show you from the premiere episode, which airs Wednesday. The
executive producer says the network couldn`t take the chance with the
FCC.
Well, some celebrity baby news tonight. Drew Lachey of "Dancing with
the
Stars" is a father. His wife, Lea, gave birth to a baby girl yesterday
in
Los Angeles. She`s the couple`s first child. A rep says Mom, Dad and
baby
are healthy and happy.
Congratulations, you two.
And those are tonight`s "Hot Headlines." Brooke, back to you.
ANDERSON: An exciting time for them. Sibila, thanks so much. SHOWBIZ
TONIGHT`s Sibila Vargas.
HAMMER: The weekend has finally arrived. And tonight, in "People`s"
"Picks
and Pans," what`s new at the movies, taking a look at the new Denzel
Washington film, "Inside Man." Amanda Bynes back in "She`s the Man."
And
finally, we`re going to talk about a little independent flick called
"L`Enfant."
Here to talk us through each one, "People" magazine movie critic Leah
Rozen.
Welcome to Friday, Leah.
LEAH ROZEN, MOVIE CRITIC, "PEOPLE" MAGAZINE: Thank you, A.J. Same to
you.
HAMMER: Let`s talk about this Spike Lee-Denzel Washington movie "Inside
Man," which I understand is not traditional Spike Lee fare.
ROZEN: Well, this is essentially a genre film. It is a heist movie.
This
is the fourth time that Spike Lee and Denzel Washington have teamed up,
and this is a really fun movie.
You know, years ago some disgruntled reader wrote to me and said, "Why
can`t you just sit back at a movie with a Coke and a smile?" And I`ve
got
to say: This is one of those movies you just sit back and enjoy it.
Bank robbery film, Denzel Washington plays the cop who has to figure
out
what the bank robber is up to, how to get the hostages out. Jodie
Foster
shows up as sort of a fixer for the rich and powerful. You know, there
are
all kinds of involved things going on.
But it`s fun, very much a New York movie. Everybody is a wiseacre, a
kvetcher, or working an angle, sometimes all three. This one really
works.
HAMMER: A good Coke-and-a-smile movie. Excellent.
Well, let`s move on to Amanda Bynes in "She`s the Man." This is
probably
not a movie for everybody, but it opened up with some good success last
week, and I understand it`s cute.
ROZEN: It`s a cute film, exactly. It`s good for teenage girls, teenage
boys, tweeners. I don`t know if adults have to go. This is yet another
of
those teenage Shakespeare films, you know, a teenage movie, but based
on a
Shakespeare play, though many of the teenagers probably won`t know.
It`s
based on "Twelfth Night."
Amanda Bynes plays a girl who so wants to play soccer she disguised
herself as a boy and pretends she`s her twin brother and joins his
school
team. Again, it`s cute. It has some point. The physical slapstick stuff
is
very funny.
HAMMER: Appropriate for the age group, it sounds like.
All right, normally we might not talk about a film that`s not yet in
wide
release, but "L`Enfant" you say is a terrific film, did well at Cannes.
This is a Belgian flick.
ROZEN: This is a Belgian film, directed by the Dardenne brothers. It
won
the big prize at Cannes last spring. This is a film about a young man,
a
young couple have a baby. They`re homeless. The young man sells the
child
into the black market. And then, when his girlfriend, you know, is
devastated, he has to go and try and get the kid back.
And it`s just -- it`s a film that really sort of captures the
struggling
underclass of Europe. It`s made with heart, and it`s full of meaning,
and
it`s worth seeing. The English title would be "The Child," if you can`t
remember "L`Enfant."
HAMMER: And that leads me to my next question. It`s a foreign film.
Subtitles, I`m presuming?
ROZEN: Yes, it`s in French, with English subtitles.
HAMMER: OK. That`s important information we have to know, because some
people don`t love the subtitles.
ROZEN: You have to read while you`re watching this one.
HAMMER: All right. Leah Rozen, thanks, as always, for your input on the
films opening this weekend or already out. And for more "Picks and
Pans,"
as always, grab your copy of "People" magazine. It is on newsstands
now.
ANDERSON: We have been getting an overwhelming response to our SHOWBIZ
TONIGHT "Question of the Day." Charlie Sheen speaks out: Do you agree
with
his assertion that there is a government cover-up of 9/11?
Let`s take a look at how the vote is going so far: 82 percent of you
say
yes; only 18 percent of you say no.
Here are some of the e-mails we`ve received. Annette from Texas writes,
"What our government has hidden about 9/11 is just the tip of the
iceberg."
Daniel from Florida says, "I am shocked at the accusations that Charlie
Sheen made towards our government."
And Robert from Virginia: "The evidence is like lipstick on the collar
of
a wayward husband. Democracy requires facing the truth."
You can keep voting, CNN.com/showbiztonight. Don`t go anywhere. SHOWBIZ
TONIGHT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAMMER: Welcome back to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT. As we wind things down for a
Friday night, let us now take a look at what is coming up on SHOWBIZ
TONIGHT on Monday. For that, we open up our "Showbiz Marquee."
So my question to you: Are your co-workers driving you crazy?
CAMERA CREW: Yes!
HAMMER: Well, whether it`s your boss or the guy in the next cubicle or
the
guy who is working the camera next to you who`s driving you up a wall,
a
new book has some advice on how to deal. The authors, right here,
Monday
on SHOWBIZ TONIGHT.
Also on Monday, digging for the truth about "The Da Vinci Code." We are
separating the fact from the fiction with the History Channel and
archaeologist Josh Bernstein. That will happen live on Monday.
A lot of controversy has surrounded over that fact-from-fiction debate.
We`ll get into that.
ANDERSON: Absolutely.
HAMMER: And that is it for SHOWBIZ TONIGHT. Have a great weekend. I`m
A.J.
Hammer in New York.
ANDERSON: Thanks for watching, everyone. I`m Brooke Anderson in
Hollywood.
Please stay tuned for the very latest from CNN Headline News.
END
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/24/sbt.01.html
google keywords:
767 757 atta remote control DIA ONI apollo guardian egyptair 990
pentagon hole wtc micronukes
Website: http://911blogger.com
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20598
Tom Engelhardt TomDispatch.com
Tomgram: Returning to the scene of the crime
Noam Chomsky on war crimes in Iraq
In the Vietnam era, the subject of war crimes was the last to arrive
and the first to depart. When, in 1971 in Detroit, Vietnam Veterans
Against the War convened its Winter Soldier Investigation into U.S. war
crimes in Southeast Asia, it was roundly ignored by the media. Over 100
veterans gave firsthand testimony to war crimes they either committed
or witnessed. Beyond the unbearable nature of their testimony, the
hearings were startling for the fact that here were men who yearned to
take some responsibility for what they had done. But while it was, by
then, possible for Americans to accept the GI as a victim in Vietnam,
it proved impossible for most Americans to accept him as a human being
taking responsibility for a crime against humanity. There was no place
for this in the American imagination, it seemed, no less for the
thought that the planning and prosecution of the war were potential
crimes committed by our leaders. Evidently there still is none, which
is why it's important to follow Noam Chomsky back into the Iraq of
recent years to consider the American occupation of that country in the
context of war crimes.
The piece that follows is an excerpt from Chomsky's new book, Failed
States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, which is
officially published on this very day. It is Chomsky at his best, a
superb tour (de force) of a world in which the BUSh
administration has regularly asserted its right to launch "preventive"
military interventions against "failed" and "rogue" states, while
increasingly taking on the characteristics of those failed and rogue
states itself. It will be an indispensable volume for any library. (You
can check out a Chomsky discussion of it at Democracy Now!)
Returning to the Scene of the Crime
War Crimes in Iraq
By Noam Chomsky
[This piece is adapted from Chapter 2 of Noam Chomsky's newest book,
Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (New
York: Metropolitan Books, 2006).]
In 2002, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales passed on to Bush a
memorandum on torture by the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC). As noted by constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson:
"According to the OLC, 'acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to
the level of torture... Physical pain amounting to torture must be
equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical
injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even
death.'" Levinson goes on to say that in the view of Jay Bybee, then
head of the OLC, "The infliction of anything less intense than such
extreme pain would not, technically speaking, be torture at all. It
would merely be inhuman and degrading treatment, a subject of little
apparent concern to the Bush administration's lawyers."
Gonzales further advised President Bush to effectively rescind the
Geneva Conventions, which, despite being "the supreme law of the land"
and the foundation of contemporary international law, contained
provisions Gonzales determined to be "quaint" and "obsolete."
Rescinding the conventions, he informed Bush, "substantially reduces
the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
Passed in 1996, the act carries severe penalties for "grave breaches"
of the conventions: the death penalty, "if death results to the victim"
of the breach. Gonzales was later appointed to be attorney general and
would probably have been a Supreme Court nominee if Bush's constituency
did not regard him as "too liberal."
How to Destroy a City to Save It
Gonzales's legal advice about protecting Bush from the threat of
prosecution under the War Crimes Act was proven sound not long after he
gave it, in a case far more severe even than the torture scandals. In
November 2004, US occupation forces launched their second major attack
on the city of Falluja. The press reported major war crimes instantly,
with approval. The attack began with a bombing campaign intended to
drive out all but the adult male population; men ages fifteen to
forty-five who attempted to flee Falluja were turned back. The plans
resembled the preliminary stage of the Srebrenica massacre, though the
Serb attackers trucked women and children out of the city instead of
bombing them out. While the preliminary bombing was under way, Iraqi
journalist Nermeen al-Mufti reported from "the city of minarets [which]
once echoed the Euphrates in its beauty and calm [with its] plentiful
water and lush greenery... a summer resort for Iraqis [where people
went] for leisure, for a swim at the nearby Habbaniya lake, for a kebab
meal." She described the fate of victims of these bombing attacks in
which sometimes whole families, including pregnant women and babies,
unable to flee, along with many others, were killed because the
attackers who ordered their flight had cordoned off the city, closing
the exit roads.
Al-Mufti asked residents whether there were foreign fighters in
Falluja. One man said that "he had heard that there were Arab fighters
in the city, but he never saw any of them." Then he heard that they had
left. "Regardless of the motives of those fighters, they have provided
a pretext for the city to be slaughtered," he continued, and "it is our
right to resist." Another said that "some Arab brothers were among us,
but when the shelling intensified, we asked them to leave and they
did," and then asked a question of his own: "Why has America given
itself the right to call on UK and Australian and other armies for help
and we don't have the same right?"
It would be interesting to ask how often that question has been raised
in Western commentary and reporting. Or how often the analogous
question was raised in the Soviet press in the 1980s, about
Afghanistan. How often was a term like "foreign fighters" used to refer
to the invading armies? How often did reporting and commentary stray
from the assumption that the only conceivable question is how well "our
side" is doing, and what the prospects are for "our success"? It is
hardly necessary to investigate. The assumptions are cast in iron. Even
to entertain a question about them would be unthinkable, proof of
"support for terror" or "blaming all the problems of the world on
America/Russia," or some other familiar refrain.
After several weeks of bombing, the United States began its ground
attack in Falluja. It opened with the conquest of the Falluja General
Hospital. The front-page story in the New York Times reported that
"patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed
soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their
hands behind their backs." An accompanying photograph depicted the
scene. It was presented as a meritorious achievement. "The offensive
also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the
militants: Falluja General Hospital, with its stream of reports of
civilian casualties." Plainly such a propaganda weapon is a legitimate
target, particularly when "inflated civilian casualty figures" --
inflated because our leader so declared -- had "inflamed opinion
throughout the country, driving up the political costs of the
conflict." The word "conflict" is a common euphemism for U.S.
aggression, as when we read on the same pages that "now, the Americans
are rushing in engineers who will begin rebuilding what the conflict
has just destroyed" -- just "the conflict," with no agent, like a
hurricane.
Some relevant documents passed unmentioned, perhaps because they too
are considered quaint and obsolete: for example, the provision of the
Geneva Conventions stating that "fixed establishments and mobile
medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be
attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the
Parties to the conflict." Thus the front page of the world's leading
newspaper was cheerfully depicting war crimes for which the political
leadership could be sentenced to severe penalties under U.S. law, the
death penalty if patients ripped from their beds and manacled on the
floor happened to die as a result. The questions did not merit
detectable inquiry or reflection. The same mainstream sources told us
that the U.S. military "achieved nearly all their objectives well ahead
of schedule," as "much of the city lay in smoking ruins." But it was
not a complete success. There was little evidence of dead "packrats" in
their "warrens" or on the streets, "an enduring mystery." U.S. forces
did discover "the body of a woman on a street in Falluja, but it was
unclear whether she was an Iraqi or a foreigner." The crucial question,
apparently.
Another front-page story quotes a senior Marine commander who says that
the attack on Falluja "ought to go down in the history books." Perhaps
it should. If so, we know on just what page of history it will find its
place. Perhaps Falluja will appear right alongside Grozny [the
destroyed capital of Chechnya], a city of about the same size, with a
picture of Bush and Putin gazing into each other's souls. Those who
praise or for that matter even tolerate all of this can select their
own favorite pages of history.
A Burnt-Out Shell of a Country
The media accounts of the assault were not uniform. Qatar-based
Al-Jazeera, the most important news channel in the Arab world, was
harshly criticized by high US officials for having "emphasized civilian
casualties" during the destruction of Falluja. The problem of
independent media was later resolved when the channel was kicked out of
Iraq in preparation for free elections.
Turning beyond the U.S. mainstream, we discover also that "Dr. Sami
al-Jumaili described how U.S. warplanes bombed the Central Health
Centre in which he was working," killing thirty-five patients and
twenty-four staff. His report was confirmed by an Iraqi reporter for
Reuters and the BBC, and by Dr. Eiman al-Ani of Falluja General
Hospital, who said that the entire health center, which he reached
shortly after the attack, had collapsed on the patients. The attacking
forces said that the report was "unsubstantiated." In another gross
violation of international humanitarian law, even minimal decency, the
U.S. military denied the Iraqi Red Crescent access to Falluja. Sir
Nigel Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross, condemned
the action as "hugely significant." It sets "a dangerous precedent," he
said: "The Red Crescent had a mandate to meet the needs of the local
population facing a huge crisis." Perhaps this additional crime was a
reaction to a very unusual public statement by the International
Committee of the Red Cross, condemning all sides in the war in Iraq for
their "utter contempt for humanity."
In what appears to be the first report of a visitor to Falluja after
the operation was completed, Iraqi doctor Ali Fadhil said he found it
"completely devastated." The modern city now "looked like a city of
ghosts." Fadhil saw few dead bodies of Iraqi fighters in the streets;
they had been ordered to abandon the city before the assault began.
Doctors reported that the entire medical staff had been locked into the
main hospital when the U.S. attack began, "tied up" under U.S. orders:
"Nobody could get to the hospital and people were bleeding to death in
the city." The attitudes of the invaders were summarized by a message
written in lipstick on the mirror of a ruined home: "Fuck Iraq and
every Iraqi in it." Some of the worst atrocities were committed by
members of the Iraqi National Guard used by the invaders to search
houses, mostly "poor Shias from the south... jobless and desperate,"
probably "fan[ning] the seeds of a civil war."
Embedded reporters arriving a few weeks later found some people
"trickling back to Falluja," where they "enter a desolate world of
skeletal buildings, tank-blasted homes, weeping power lines and severed
palm trees." The ruined city of 250,000 was now "devoid of electricity,
running water, schools or commerce," under a strict curfew, and
"conspicuously occupied" by the invaders who had just demolished it and
the local forces they had assembled. The few refugees who dared to
return under tight military surveillance found "lakes of sewage in the
streets. The smell of corpses inside charred buildings. No water or
electricity. Long waits and thorough searches by U.S. troops at
checkpoints. Warnings to watch out for land mines and booby traps.
Occasional gunfire between troops and insurgents."
Half a year later came perhaps the first visit by an international
observer, Joe Carr of the Christian Peacemakers Team in Baghdad, whose
previous experience had been in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian
territories. Arriving on May 28, he found painful similarities: many
hours of waiting at the few entry points, more for harassment than for
security; regular destruction of produce in the devastated remains of
the city where "food prices have dramatically increased because of the
checkpoints"; blocking of ambulances transporting people for medical
treatment; and other forms of random brutality familiar from the
Israeli press. The ruins of Falluja, he wrote, are even worse than
Rafah in the Gaza Strip, virtually destroyed by US- backed Israeli
terror. The United States "has leveled entire neighborhoods, and about
every third building is destroyed or damaged." Only one hospital with
in-patient care survived the attack, but access was impeded by the
occupying army, leading to many deaths in Falluja and rural areas.
Sometimes dozens of people were packed into a "burned out shell." Only
about a quarter of families whose homes were destroyed received some
compensation, usually less than half of the cost for materials needed
to rebuild them.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, accused
U.S. and British troops in Iraq of "breaching international law by
depriving civilians of food and water in besieged cities as they try to
flush out militants" in Falluja and other cities attacked in subsequent
months. U.S.-led forces "cut off or restricted food and water to
encourage residents to flee before assaults," he informed the
international press, "using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon
of war against the civilian population, [in] flagrant violation" of the
Geneva Conventions. The U.S. public was largely spared the news.
Even apart from such major war crimes as the assault on Falluja, there
is more than enough evidence to support the conclusion of a professor
of strategic studies at the Naval War College that the year 2004 "was a
truly horrible and brutal one for hapless Iraq." Hatred of the United
States, he continued, is now rampant in a country subjected to years of
sanctions that had already led to "the destruction of the Iraqi middle
class, the collapse of the secular educational system, and the growth
of illiteracy, despair, and anomie [that] promoted an Iraqi religious
revival [among] large numbers of Iraqis seeking succor in religion."
Basic services deteriorated even more than they had under the
sanctions. "Hospitals regularly run out of the most basic medicines...
the facilities are in horrid shape, [and] scores of specialists and
experienced physicians are leaving the country because they fear they
are targets of violence or because they are fed up with the substandard
working conditions."
Meanwhile, "religion's role in Iraqi political life has ratcheted
steadily higher since U.S.-led forces overthrew Mr. Hussein in 2003,"
the Wall Street Journal reports. Since the invasion, "not a single
political decision" has been made without Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani's "tacit or explicit approval, say government officials,"
while the "formerly little- known young rebel cleric" Muqtada al-Sadr
has "fashioned a political and military movement that has drawn tens of
thousands of followers in the south and in Baghdad's poorest slums."
Similar developments have taken place in Sunni areas. The vote on
Iraq's draft constitution in fall 2005 turned into "a battle of the
mosques," with voters largely following religious edicts. Few Iraqis
had even seen the document because the government had scarcely
distributed any copies. The new constitution, the Wall Street Journal
notes, has "far deeper Islamic underpinnings than Iraq's last one, a
half century ago, which was based on [secular] French civil law," and
had granted women "nearly equal rights" with men. All of this has now
been reversed under the U.S. occupation.
War Crimes and Casualty Counts
The consequences of years of Western violence and strangulation are
endlessly frustrating to civilized intellectuals, who are amazed to
discover that, in the words of Edward Luttwak, "the vast majority of
Iraqis, assiduous mosque-goers and semi-literate at best," are simply
unable to "believe what for them is entirely incomprehensible: that
foreigners have been unselfishly expending their own blood and treasure
to help them." By definition, no evidence necessary.
Commentators have lamented that the United States has changed "from a
country that condemned torture and forbade its use to one that
practices torture routinely." The actual history is far less benign.
But torture, however horrifying, scarcely weighs in the balance in
comparison with the war crimes at Falluja and elsewhere in Iraq, or the
general effects of the U.S. and UK invasion. One illustration, noted in
passing and quickly dismissed in the United States, is the careful
study by prominent U.S. and Iraqi specialists published in the world's
leading medical journal, the Lancet, in October 2004. The conclusions
of the study, carried out on rather conservative assumptions, are that
"the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is
probably about 100,000 people, and may be much higher." The figures
include nearly 40,000 Iraqis killed as a direct result of combat or
armed violence, according to a later Swiss review of the study's data.
A subsequent study by Iraq Body Count found 25,000 noncombatants
reported killed in the first two years of the occupation -- in Baghdad,
one in 500 citizens; in Falluja, one in 136. US-led forces killed 37
percent, criminals 36 percent, "anti-occupation forces" 9 percent.
Killings doubled in the second year of the occupation. Most deaths were
caused by explosive devices; two- thirds of these by air strikes. The
estimates of Iraq Body Count are based on media reports, and are
therefore surely well below the actual numbers, though shocking enough.
Reviewing these reports along with the UNDP "Iraq Living Conditions
Survey" (April 2005), British analyst Milan Rai concludes that the
results are largely consistent, the apparent variation in numbers
resulting primarily from differences in the specific topics
investigated and the time periods covered. These conclUSions gain some
support from a Pentagon study that estimated 26,000 Iraqi civilians and
security forces killed and wounded < i>by insurgents since January
2004. The New York Times report of the Pentagon study also mentions
several others, but omits the most important one, in the Lancet. It
notes in passing that "no figures were provided for the number of
Iraqis killed by American-led forces." The Times story appeared
immediately after the day that had been set aside by international
activists for commemoration of all Iraqi deaths, on the first
anniversary of the release of the Lancet report.
The scale of the catastrophe in Iraq is so extreme that it can barely
be reported. Journalists are largely confined to the heavily fortified
Green Zone in Baghdad, or else travel under heavy guard. There have
been a few regular exceptions in the mainstream press, such as Robert
Fisk and Patrick Cockburn [of the British newspaper The Independent],
who face extreme hazards, and there are occasional indications of Iraqi
opinion. One was a report on a nostalgic gathering of educated
westernized Baghdad elites, where discussion turned to the sacking of
Baghdad by Hulagu Khan and his vicious atrocities. A philosophy
professor commented that "Hulagu was humane compared with the
Americans," drawing some laughter, but "most of the guests seemed eager
to avoid the subject of politics and violence, which dominate everyday
life here." Instead they turned to past efforts to create an Iraqi
national culture that would overcome the old ethnic- religious
divisions to which Iraq is now "regressing" under the occupation, and
discussed the destruction of the treasures of Iraqi and world
civilization, a tragedy not experienced since the Mongol invasions.
Additional effects of the invasion include the decline of the median
income of Iraqis, from $255 in 2003 to about $144 in 2004, as well as
"significant countrywide shortages of rice, sugar, milk, and infant
formula," according to the U.N. World Food Program, which had warned in
advance of the invasion that it would not be able to duplicate the
efficient rationing system that had been in place under Saddam Hussein.
Iraqi newspapers report that new rations contain metal filings, one
consequence of the vast corruption under the U.S.-UK occupation. Acute
malnutrition doubled within sixteen months of the occupation of Iraq,
to the level of Burundi, well above Haiti or Uganda, a figure that
"translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from 'wasting,'
a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous
deficiencies of protein." This is a country in which hundreds of
thousands of children had already died as a consequence of the U.S.-
and UK-led sanctions. In May 2005, U.N. rapporteur Jean Ziegler
released a report of the Norwegian Institute for Applied Social Science
confirming these figures. The relatively high nutritional levels of
Iraqis in the 1970s and 1980s, even through the war with Iran, began to
decline severely during the decade of the sanctions, with a further
disastrous decline after the 2003 invasion.
Meanwhile, violence against civilians extended beyond the occupiers and
the insurgency. Washington Post reporters Anthony Shadid and Steve
Fainaru reported that "Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as
part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of
abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation,
consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern
Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and sectarian
lines." One indicator of the scale of the catastrophe is the huge flood
of refugees "fleeing violence and economic troubles," a million to
Syria and Jordan alone since the U.S. invasion, most of them
"professionals and secular moderates who could help with the practical
task of getting the country to run well."
The Lancet study estimating 100,000 probable deaths by October 2004
elicited enough comment in England that the government had to issue an
embarrassing denial, but in the United States virtual silence
prevailed. The occasional oblique reference usually describes it as the
"controversial" report that "as many as 100,000" Iraqis died as a
result of the invasion. The figure of 100,000 was the most probable
estimate, on conservative assumptions; it would be at least as accurate
to describe it as the report that "as few as 100,000" died. Though the
report was released at the height of the US presidential campaign, it
appears that neither of the leading candidates was ever publicly
questioned about it.
The reaction follows the general pattern when massive atrocities are
perpetrated by the wrong agent. A striking example is the Indochina
wars. In the only poll (to my knowledge) in which people were asked to
estimate the number of Vietnamese deaths, the mean estimate was
100,000, about 5 percent of the official figure; the actual toll is
unknown, and of no more interest than the also unknown toll of
casualties of U.S. chemical warfare. The authors of the study comment
that it is as if college students in Germany estimated Holocaust deaths
at 300,000, in which case we might conclude that there are some
problems in Germany -- and if Germany ruled the world, some rather more
serious problems. Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's
Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the
co-founder of the American Empire Project.
http://www.americanempireproject.com/
to write to Tom Engelhardt
http://www.tomdispatch.com/contact
> Noam Chomsky on war crimes in Iraq
> In the Vietnam era, the subject of war crimes was the last to arrive
> and the first to depart. When, in 1971 in Detroit, Vietnam Veterans
> Against the War convened its Winter Soldier Investigation into U.S. war
> crimes in Southeast Asia, it was roundly ignored by the media. Over 100
> veterans gave firsthand testimony to war crimes they either committed
> or witnessed. << snip >>
Are you people aware that Noam Chomsky is an academic and a linguist?
He has no more credentials to comment - on the country which he hates -
than does anyone else. He lives a life in academic isolation and is
clueless as to how those outside of higher education go about their
lives. But I will grant you that he is a good writer. Although how he
selects to equate cause and effect is quite often laughable.
I have a question to yous all.
======================================
What *WILL YOU DO* after 911 came out?
======================================
Here is my approach:
I shall try to avoid being an idiot who has not learned from history.
So, I read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States and
VOLTAIRE'S BASTARDS (and "The Unconscious Civilisation") by John
Ralston Saul and listen to Michael Parenti mp3s
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=search&nav=&session=&searchtext=michael+parenti
I educate myself on possible organising principles for a society, so I
listen to this multiple times:
http://zpedia.org/Government_in_the_Future
and really try to understand it.
I observe the example of a fairly advanced society with free elections
that learned the hard way what business-perverted society had done and
emulate their rectifications. I read the February 1947 party-programme
of the pro-military, pro-business RIGHT WING "CDU" PARTY. They (most
former NAZIs) concluded: "The capitalist economic system has not met
the vital social and state interests of the German people. After the
terrible political, economic and social collapse which followed in the
wake of a criminal power policy, only a completely new order can be
established. The aim and content of this new social and economic order
can no longer be profit and power-seeking capitalism, but the welfare
of our people. A social economic order will provide the German people
with a social and economic constitution in keeping with the rights and
the dignity of man, one which serves the spiritual and material
rebuilding of our nation, and which ensures both internal and external
peace." http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2005/02/20050204.php
Then I choose a wise mantra-sentence to guide me: "In today's world, I
think, the goals of a committed anarchist should be to defend some
state institutions from the attack against them, while trying at the
same time to pry them open to more meaningful public participation -
and ultimately, to dismantled them in a much more free society, if the
appropriate circumstances can be achieved." (Noam Chomsky, Power &
Prospects isbn 1-86448-112-9 page 75)
IMHO most would provisionally agree that a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY is a good
starting point.
Like in Germany.
Workers are paid really well and get humane perks like 6 weeks paid
holidays by law, 3 years paid parental leave, generous state-pension
system without banks, money creation mostly done by people-owned banks,
free enterprise in a strongly regulated level playing field, along the
lines of A.Ruestow
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Interessenpolitik+oder+Staatspolitik%3F%22
>From there a FREE PARLIAMENT, elected and guided by the people who are
informed by a BUSINESS-FREE PRESS, i.e. truely INDEPENDENT Journalists,
could make the transition to a fair and hierarchy-free (anarchic)
society.
PS: If the word ANARCHY scares you, just remember it only means that
NOBODY SHOULD RULE YOU BY FORCE.
http://u2r2h.modblog.com
In amazement I am looking at the Abstracts of
THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%2313091%232006%23999769999%23621502%23FLA%23&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=aab4b4bbf021149219320d0e2a5568c5&view=f
a SCIENCE publication by
Elsevier
655 6th Avenue, New York, NY 10010-5107
Fax: (212)-633-3680 . . . Tel: (888)-437-4636
The conclusion is that the military conducted 911
and HENRY SHELTON will have to be hanged for treason.
Or am I missing something?
Gawd, 105 US dollars for a book seems a bit much, but BOY will it have
collector's
value in a few year, either for being the MOST HORRENDOUS BOOK ever
written, or for THE BOOK that got G W Bush hanged.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/booksorderform.cws_home/708598/bookorderform1_1
"Mike Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> We have no idea
>
> I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
>
> Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
>
> Mike Smith
Well done
Isn't it amazing how much effort they spend proving it to us over and over.
It's unfortunate that they are so talented at generating a lot of words to
compensate for their lacks.
cheney tried to commit suicide but he missed
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NWO is bullshit invented by US elites to bum-steer the
> Patridiots
>
> To get USA back to No1.
>
> The best way is to indict Cheney for doing 911 in The Hague, and the
> american people making sure everyone of these bastards is brought
> there.
>
> The argument that there are other criminals in the world in need of
> prosecution is easily countered with:
>
> First clean your own home before you ask others to clean theirs.
>
> Therefore the USA-citizens need to do it.
>
> Just endorse the ICC in The Hague.
> Doing that would be the first step. Because SIMPLY THE FACT THAT US
> CITIZENS ACCEPT THE HAGUE will be the message (to act upon).
>
> q.e.d.
>
The Nam and Iraq are done in our name. We are al equal. Our right to comment
shall not be diminished by lack nor surfeit of education.
Iraq has the oil.
Quick, anyone know what Indo China had to exploit?
answer below
"Nolo Contendre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Noam Chomsky on war crimes in Iraq
>
>> In the Vietnam era, the subject of war crimes was the last to arrive
>> and the first to depart. When, in 1971 in Detroit, Vietnam Veterans
>> Against the War convened its Winter Soldier Investigation into U.S. war
>> crimes in Southeast Asia, it was roundly ignored by the media. Over 100
>> veterans gave firsthand testimony to war crimes they either committed
>> or witnessed. << snip >>
>
> Are you people aware that Noam Chomsky is an academic and a linguist?
> He has no more credentials to comment - on the country which he hates -
> than does anyone else. He lives a life in academic isolation and is
> clueless as to how those outside of higher education go about their
> lives. But I will grant you that he is a good writer. Although how he
> selects to equate cause and effect is quite often laughable.
> Think Michelin Tire - think rubber plantations
Been quail hunting most of my life. Still hunt many days a season. My old
man shot me about 25 years ago. Similar situation to what happened in TX
last weekend with the VP. 'Cept I was facing the other way. Bad deal though,
it hurt. Never thought about calling the fuzz and doing interviews, though.
Seemed like it was just an accident. Them birds fly fast and low. I know he
had no time to realize that I dropped off the line. My old man was concerned
about whether I needed to go to the hospital though. Still got a few pieces
of shot in my ass and a couple in my right calf.
I'd get shot again, if it meant we could hunt together for another day.
"Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Perfection has nothing to do with it. It's basic hunter
>> safety. Something that when I was in Jr. High, all males
>> were required to take (northern wisconsin, early 70's).
>>
>> While I disagree with Mr. Cheney on just about everything,
>> he did the right thing when he stated that he, and he alone
>> was responsible for the accidental shooting. He should be
>> admired for that.
>>
>> scott
> Never been Quail hunting, have you? You mean the politely correct safety
> classes put on by the pussy's that want to cover their ass? If you had to
> take one to handle a gun you shouldn't be allowed to have one.
>
> --
> Dad
>
> One more gun is just enough, maybe.
>
What another crack pot on a Guns NG?
Jim
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> LIBERALS have smaller penisses... and Repugnicans are dimwit-pillocks.
>
> Cheney and your JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF burned 3000 of you and nuked the
> towers:
>
> http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
>
> and you are falling for the PROPAGANDA that was carefully engineered to
> divide you and to divert attention.
>
> Your media LIES habitually and CENSORS facts and HIDES history... and
> thats because of the LOGIC OF CAPITALISM and not the fault of any one
> person.
>
> US COWARDS do not stand up to lies and deceit and FEAR FEAR the loss of
> petroleum.. and standard of life... and will losse it ANYWAY.
>
> Go on, HATE EACH OTHER.
>
> We Asians love to see that.
>
> DO NOT EVER wake up to your FBI-CIA-NRO-NSA-spook-MURDERERS secert
> government.
>
> Remember:
>
> who lives by the sword, will die by the sword.
>
> And:
>
> Who is not against me ..
> is with me.
>
> Joshua from Nazareth
>
> Who are not with us,
> are with the terrorists.
>
> Bush-Junta,
>
> (sounds like anti-christ? .. )
>
> NEVER SHOW THESE VIDEOS to your neighbors, nor dare to discuss them.
>
> http://www.question911.com/links.php
>
> NEVER read this book: SYNTHETIC TERROR 911 WEBSTER TARPLEY
>
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/07/317436.pdf
>
Punctuation mistakes are acceptable to a certain degree. Shooting
other people while hunting type mistakes are not. It's too bad you do
not see a difference.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:16:26 -0500, "Dad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Another perfect man heard from, lots of them come out of the woodwork
>when someone else makes a mistake. How many words did you misuse and
>misspell in your post? Perfection is great and basic.
>
>"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Lets boil this down a little. Cheney has admitted that he pulled
>> the trigger. He hasn't yet said anything about the fact that he
>> aimed the shotgut. That is the key to this. If he were seriously
>> hunting quail, they are small targets, moving fast. He should have
>> been seeing his target before he shot; the presence of a large man
>> dressed in orange should have obscured the target. New media keep
>> saying he "accidently" show Whittingon; what they should be saying
>> is he "carelessly" shot Whittington. I can think of some other
>> modifiers.
>>
>> Too bad he missed out on basic training.
>> Steve
>
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In Ireland they were impressed, but
> US-american republicans and patriots
> dare not look the truth in the eye.
>
> http://www.newstalk106.ie/noam-chomskys.html
>
> these days ANGST is as american as AbuGraibh..
>
I know I'm afraid. Afraid I'll puke.
"Gooey TARBALLS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ZE_f.10555$gy2.5838@trnddc08...
> The Nam and Iraq are done in our name. We are al equal. Our right to
comment
> shall not be diminished by lack nor surfeit of education.
>
> Iraq has the oil.
>
> Quick, anyone know what Indo China had to exploit?
>
> answer below
>
A fear of a common enemy (communism), in order to focus the population (of
the USA) away from domestic issues).
> "Nolo Contendre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> Noam Chomsky on war crimes in Iraq
> >
> >> In the Vietnam era, the subject of war crimes was the last to arrive
> >> and the first to depart. When, in 1971 in Detroit, Vietnam Veterans
> >> Against the War convened its Winter Soldier Investigation into U.S. war
> >> crimes in Southeast Asia, it was roundly ignored by the media. Over 100
> >> veterans gave firsthand testimony to war crimes they either committed
> >> or witnessed. << snip >>
> >
> > Are you people aware that Noam Chomsky is an academic and a linguist?
> > He has no more credentials to comment - on the country which he hates -
> > than does anyone else. He lives a life in academic isolation and is
> > clueless as to how those outside of higher education go about their
> > lives. But I will grant you that he is a good writer. Although how he
> > selects to equate cause and effect is quite often laughable.
> > Think Michelin Tire - think rubber plantations
>
>
Not exactly, just be glad you were not a good friend of the Clinton's.
Remember that it took Hilly over 30 hours to remember the suicide note from
her lawyer Vince? Here a few more that didn't make it through the Clinton
years.
James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent
heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken
Starr's investigation.
Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a
Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was
to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary
Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head,
ruled a suicide.
Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have
died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation
reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a
gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and
spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
C. Victor Raiser II - Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund
raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in
a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "Dear
friend and trusted advisor".
Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods
in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled suicide. Ed Willey died on the
same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the
oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was
involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock.
Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock.
Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He Allegedly
threatened to reveal this information. After he died the
files were mysteriously removed from his house.
James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It Was reported that he had a "Bl
ack Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited
prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide.
He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.
Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead
in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a
suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were
going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a codefendant along with Bill Clinton in
the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness
for Paula Jones.
Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson.
Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June,
1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his
fiancee.
Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping
out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted
drug distributor.
Florence Martin - Accountant & subcontractor for the CIA, was related to the
Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot
wounds.
Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas
Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a
suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her
death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena airport and
Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in
the middle of his investigation.
Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with
Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June
22,1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno
3 weeks before his death.
Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution TrustCorp.
Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August
15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee scandal.
Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown
and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised
nude body was found locked in her office at the
Department of Commerce.
Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang
special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care
Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a Small plane
crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council
personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.
Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, Death was no accident.
Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the
trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had
hit a utility pole.
Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a reported
suicide and his report was never released.
Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when
his plane exploded.
Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say
the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A
controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep
on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before
being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their
testimony could come before a Grand Jury. THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD
INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck,
7/88.
Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov., 1988.
Gregory Collins -Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in
April 1989.
James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was
due to "natural causes".
Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup
truck in June 1990.
Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives /Henry deaths. He was killed in a
setup robbery July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
Major William S. Barkley Jr.
Captain Scott J. Reynolds
Sgt. Brian Hanley
Sgt. Tim Sabel
Major General William Robertson
Col. William Densberger
Col. Robert Kelly
Spec. Gary Rhodes
Steve Willis
Robert Williams
Conway LeBleu
Todd McKeehan
"Mapanari" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrotenews:1140114035.275564.164600
> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Not really. But it does that various seeming right-wingers are kinda
>> hyper-sensitive about one of "theirs" getting treatment similar to what
>> they deem appropriate to the opposition.
>
> Not even close. The liberals, communists and socialists control all the
> media.
> This is so silly, it should have been a laugher bit mention on the evening
> news.
> But when Bill Clinton lies before a federal grand jury and gets impeached,
> the screams, howls and virturpitude against normal Americans was
> tremendous, with "buh, buh, buh, it's just SEXXXXX <wail>" as the mantra
> to
> excuse the crime.
>
> When Nixon's aids lied before a grand jury, they went to jail, some for
> years.
>
>>
>> Grow up, and get over it- these folks have made it a part of the
>> territory. Cheney has only compounded his own problem.
>
> What has he done? Not "answered questions" from the left wing media?
>
> They're like paparazzi...no matter what a white, republican, middle class,
> anti-immigration, mono-culturalist has to say, it's always wrong, sneared
> at, belittled and made fun of.
>
> He can't win. Why try? It'll just be spun, lied, edited and make out to
> be a fool, a criminal, Tony Soprano's brother or worse.
>
>>
>> You forget, in all this liberal-labeling, that the center is where the
>> votes are. You might say "It's the center, stupid!" Not the neo-cons or
>> other wingnuts.
>
> The "center" you like to call it, is what all liberals refer as "The vast
> right wing conspiracy".
>
> The center, from your viewpoint, is Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and others.
>
> All others are flaming right wing fanatics, christians or worse.
>
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> b{-_-}d
>
> I'm listening!
>
> ---Mapanari---
"Nolo Contendre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Are you people aware that Noam Chomsky is an academic and a linguist?
> He has no more credentials to comment - on the country which he hates -
> than does anyone else. He lives a life in academic isolation and is
> clueless as to how those outside of higher education go about their
> lives.
Unfortunately, he's not the only one. Academia is filled with people whose
pet "theories" fall apart in the real world.
"Rondo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not only have you not fired the weapon, but you don't hunt flying birds.
> How do you folks think about passing judgement when you aren't quail
> hunters, or pheasant hunters or any other flushing prey?
>
> Got to be a bit bent left IMHO, otherwise it's a hunting accident that
> pissed off the big news agencies cause they didn't get the news early
> enough to make the ratings game.
>
> Nothing more, nothing less.
>
Who got shot ? some lawyer of no import to the country,was it accidental ?
yes, who shot him ? the VP. Is the VP OK yes he is fine, has it affected his
decision ability? no . Was it reported in a timely manner ? yes to the local
press but not to the White House press who were not at the scene.
Taking a similar situation, the head Dem Harry Reed had a stroke last year,
It took him 3 days to report it to the White Huse press, did it affect his
decision capabilities ? no ,they are just as idiotic as before .
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:58:54 -0800, Enoch Root <[email protected]>
wrote:
>David wrote:
>
>> I thought that Whittington hadn't announced his return to the line from
>> retrieving a bird. yes? no? I'm not a hunter and am just repeating
>> what I remember from the news yesterday.
>>
>> And of course Cheney is ultimately responsible, which he already admitted.
>
>I look at it as being just like a car accident: there are always
>degrees of fault. Cheney ran the light, and Whittington didn't look for
>crazies while approaching it.
>
Given the story that Whittington hadn't announced his return to the line
(as he should have), the analogy is more appropriate that Whittington ran
the light and Cheney was the driver passing the intersection when
Whittington ran the light. Driver who hits the guy doesn't feel any better
that he is not at fault, believing there is probably something he could
have done to swerve, stop, or avoid the accident.
It was an unfortunate hunting accident, mistakes were made and events
converged such that someone was hurt.
>er
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mapanari wrote:
> Not even close. The liberals, communists and socialists control all the
> media.
That's funny. Ann Coulter doesn't seem to be in agreement with you on that:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/wp-content/coulterwehavethemedia.mp3
I shoulda stayed out of this stupid thread. A stupid post by someone
with no skepticism is answered by shrill cries against the "liberal
establishment". As though he were representative. JUST LIKE HIM, you
all have difficulties with critical analysis. You all deserve eachother.
er
--
email not valid
[email protected] wrote:
>
> LIBERALS have smaller penisses... and Repugnicans are dimwit-pillocks.
>
> Cheney and your JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF burned 3000 of you and nuked the
> towers:
Didn't you say the other day they used kookular weapons to blow the towers?
er (er, I meant nookular...)
--
email not valid
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NWO is bullshit invented by US elites to bum-steer the
> Patridiots
>
Time for you to go to the dark closet, boy, are you loony toons!!
"A fear of a common enemy (communism),"
I was looking for the reason the French were there.
RUBBER PLANTATIONS - Michelin Tire
We got there for the same reasons we refused to help the Russian people's
revolt; changed the Pledge of Allegiance to include the words "under God"
and supported a State of Israel and its tyranny against the peoples it
dispossessed. And, because we had created the Military Industrial Complex
Ike warned us about.
"Miss L. Toe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Gooey TARBALLS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1ZE_f.10555$gy2.5838@trnddc08...
>> The Nam and Iraq are done in our name. We are al equal. Our right to
> comment
>> shall not be diminished by lack nor surfeit of education.
>>
>> Iraq has the oil.
>>
>> Quick, anyone know what Indo China had to exploit?
>>
>> answer below
>>
>
> A fear of a common enemy (communism), in order to focus the population (of
> the USA) away from domestic issues).
>
>
>> "Nolo Contendre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >> Noam Chomsky on war crimes in Iraq
>> >
>> >> In the Vietnam era, the subject of war crimes was the last to arrive
>> >> and the first to depart. When, in 1971 in Detroit, Vietnam Veterans
>> >> Against the War convened its Winter Soldier Investigation into U.S.
>> >> war
>> >> crimes in Southeast Asia, it was roundly ignored by the media. Over
>> >> 100
>> >> veterans gave firsthand testimony to war crimes they either committed
>> >> or witnessed. << snip >>
>> >
>> > Are you people aware that Noam Chomsky is an academic and a linguist?
>> > He has no more credentials to comment - on the country which he hates -
>> > than does anyone else. He lives a life in academic isolation and is
>> > clueless as to how those outside of higher education go about their
>> > lives. But I will grant you that he is a good writer. Although how he
>> > selects to equate cause and effect is quite often laughable.
>> > Think Michelin Tire - think rubber plantations
>>
>>
>
>
"mike hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rondo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Not only have you not fired the weapon, but you don't hunt flying birds.
>> How do you folks think about passing judgement when you aren't quail
>> hunters, or pheasant hunters or any other flushing prey?
>>
>> Got to be a bit bent left IMHO, otherwise it's a hunting accident that
>> pissed off the big news agencies cause they didn't get the news early
>> enough to make the ratings game.
>>
>> Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>
> Who got shot ? some lawyer of no import to the country,was it accidental ?
> yes, who shot him ? the VP. Is the VP OK yes he is fine, has it affected
> his decision ability? no . Was it reported in a timely manner ? yes to the
> local press but not to the White House press who were not at the scene.
>
> Taking a similar situation, the head Dem Harry Reed had a stroke last
> year, It took him 3 days to report it to the White Huse press, did it
> affect his decision capabilities ? no ,they are just as idiotic as before
> .
Fast recovery time. I have a feeling, though, that Reed isn't the one who
reported his stroke, if the stroke was of any import.
Another perfect man heard from, lots of them come out of the woodwork
when someone else makes a mistake. How many words did you misuse and
misspell in your post? Perfection is great and basic.
"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lets boil this down a little. Cheney has admitted that he pulled
> the trigger. He hasn't yet said anything about the fact that he
> aimed the shotgut. That is the key to this. If he were seriously
> hunting quail, they are small targets, moving fast. He should have
> been seeing his target before he shot; the presence of a large man
> dressed in orange should have obscured the target. New media keep
> saying he "accidently" show Whittingon; what they should be saying
> is he "carelessly" shot Whittington. I can think of some other
> modifiers.
>
> Too bad he missed out on basic training.
> Steve
Sentiments fully understood.
"Bob G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>I'd get shot again, if it meant we could hunt together for another day.
>>
> ====================
> Honestly I stopped reading when I read this line ...turned to my
> left.. and looked at my gun rack and zeroed in on the 2 Shotguns and 3
> rifles that were my Dads.... and smiled...
>
> ALL I CAN SAY... is.
>
> DAMN RIGHT... I would too...
>
> Miss the old man AND I will never forget him...
>
> Liberals, NeoCons... whatever... Dads are special.. especially mine
> may he rest in peace..
>
> Bob G.
--
--
"Never forget that everything Hitler did
in Germany was legal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20598
>
> Tom Engelhardt TomDispatch.com
>
> Tomgram: Returning to the scene of the crime
>
> Noam Chomsky on war crimes in Iraq
>
> In the Vietnam era, the subject of war crimes was the last to
> arrive
> and the first to depart. When, in 1971 in Detroit, Vietnam
> Veterans
> Against the War convened its Winter Soldier Investigation into
> U.S. war
> crimes in Southeast Asia, it was roundly ignored by the media.
> Over 100
> veterans gave firsthand testimony to war crimes they either
> committed
> or witnessed. Beyond the unbearable nature of their testimony,
> the
> hearings were startling for the fact that here were men who
> yearned to
> take some responsibility for what they had done. But while it
> was, by
> then, possible for Americans to accept the GI as a victim in
> Vietnam,
> it proved impossible for most Americans to accept him as a
> human being
> taking responsibility for a crime against humanity. There was
> no place
> for this in the American imagination, it seemed, no less for
> the
> thought that the planning and prosecution of the war were
> potential
> crimes committed by our leaders. Evidently there still is none,
> which
> is why it's important to follow Noam Chomsky back into the Iraq
> of
> recent years to consider the American occupation of that
> country in the
> context of war crimes.
> The piece that follows is an excerpt from Chomsky's new book,
> Failed
> States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, which
> is
> officially published on this very day. It is Chomsky at his
> best, a
> superb tour (de force) of a world in which the BUSh
> administration has regularly asserted its right to launch
> "preventive"
> military interventions against "failed" and "rogue" states,
> while
> increasingly taking on the characteristics of those failed and
> rogue
> states itself. It will be an indispensable volume for any
> library. (You
> can check out a Chomsky discussion of it at Democracy Now!)
>
> Returning to the Scene of the Crime
>
> War Crimes in Iraq
>
> By Noam Chomsky
>
> [This piece is adapted from Chapter 2 of Noam Chomsky's newest
> book,
> Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy
> (New
> York: Metropolitan Books, 2006).]
>
> In 2002, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales passed on to Bush
> a
> memorandum on torture by the Justice Department's Office of
> Legal
> Counsel (OLC). As noted by constitutional scholar Sanford
> Levinson:
> "According to the OLC, 'acts must be of an extreme nature to
> rise to
> the level of torture... Physical pain amounting to torture must
> be
> equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious
> physical
> injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function,
> or even
> death.'" Levinson goes on to say that in the view of Jay Bybee,
> then
> head of the OLC, "The infliction of anything less intense than
> such
> extreme pain would not, technically speaking, be torture at
> all. It
> would merely be inhuman and degrading treatment, a subject of
> little
> apparent concern to the Bush administration's lawyers."
>
> Gonzales further advised President Bush to effectively rescind
> the
> Geneva Conventions, which, despite being "the supreme law of
> the land"
> and the foundation of contemporary international law, contained
> provisions Gonzales determined to be "quaint" and "obsolete."
> Rescinding the conventions, he informed Bush, "substantially
> reduces
> the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War
> Crimes Act."
> Passed in 1996, the act carries severe penalties for "grave
> breaches"
> of the conventions: the death penalty, "if death results to the
> victim"
> of the breach. Gonzales was later appointed to be attorney
> general and
> would probably have been a Supreme Court nominee if Bush's
> constituency
> did not regard him as "too liberal."
>
> How to Destroy a City to Save It
>
> Gonzales's legal advice about protecting Bush from the threat
> of
> prosecution under the War Crimes Act was proven sound not long
> after he
> gave it, in a case far more severe even than the torture
> scandals. In
> November 2004, US occupation forces launched their second major
> attack
> on the city of Falluja. The press reported major war crimes
> instantly,
> with approval. The attack began with a bombing campaign
> intended to
> drive out all but the adult male population; men ages fifteen
> to
> forty-five who attempted to flee Falluja were turned back. The
> plans
> resembled the preliminary stage of the Srebrenica massacre,
> though the
> Serb attackers trucked women and children out of the city
> instead of
> bombing them out. While the preliminary bombing was under way,
> Iraqi
> journalist Nermeen al-Mufti reported from "the city of minarets
> [which]
> once echoed the Euphrates in its beauty and calm [with its]
> plentiful
> water and lush greenery... a summer resort for Iraqis [where
> people
> went] for leisure, for a swim at the nearby Habbaniya lake, for
> a kebab
> meal." She described the fate of victims of these bombing
> attacks in
> which sometimes whole families, including pregnant women and
> babies,
> unable to flee, along with many others, were killed because the
> attackers who ordered their flight had cordoned off the city,
> closing
> the exit roads.
>
> Al-Mufti asked residents whether there were foreign fighters in
> Falluja. One man said that "he had heard that there were Arab
> fighters
> in the city, but he never saw any of them." Then he heard that
> they had
> left. "Regardless of the motives of those fighters, they have
> provided
> a pretext for the city to be slaughtered," he continued, and
> "it is our
> right to resist." Another said that "some Arab brothers were
> among us,
> but when the shelling intensified, we asked them to leave and
> they
> did," and then asked a question of his own: "Why has America
> given
> itself the right to call on UK and Australian and other armies
> for help
> and we don't have the same right?"
>
> It would be interesting to ask how often that question has been
> raised
> in Western commentary and reporting. Or how often the analogous
> question was raised in the Soviet press in the 1980s, about
> Afghanistan. How often was a term like "foreign fighters" used
> to refer
> to the invading armies? How often did reporting and commentary
> stray
> from the assumption that the only conceivable question is how
> well "our
> side" is doing, and what the prospects are for "our success"?
> It is
> hardly necessary to investigate. The assumptions are cast in
> iron. Even
> to entertain a question about them would be unthinkable, proof
> of
> "support for terror" or "blaming all the problems of the world
> on
> America/Russia," or some other familiar refrain.
>
> After several weeks of bombing, the United States began its
> ground
> attack in Falluja. It opened with the conquest of the Falluja
> General
> Hospital. The front-page story in the New York Times reported
> that
> "patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by
> armed
> soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops
> tied their
> hands behind their backs." An accompanying photograph depicted
> the
> scene. It was presented as a meritorious achievement. "The
> offensive
> also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for
> the
> militants: Falluja General Hospital, with its stream of reports
> of
> civilian casualties." Plainly such a propaganda weapon is a
> legitimate
> target, particularly when "inflated civilian casualty
> figures" --
> inflated because our leader so declared -- had "inflamed
> opinion
> throughout the country, driving up the political costs of the
> conflict." The word "conflict" is a common euphemism for U.S.
> aggression, as when we read on the same pages that "now, the
> Americans
> are rushing in engineers who will begin rebuilding what the
> conflict
> has just destroyed" -- just "the conflict," with no agent, like
> a
> hurricane.
>
> Some relevant documents passed unmentioned, perhaps because
> they too
> are considered quaint and obsolete: for example, the provision
> of the
> Geneva Conventions stating that "fixed establishments and
> mobile
> medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be
> attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by
> the
> Parties to the conflict." Thus the front page of the world's
> leading
> newspaper was cheerfully depicting war crimes for which the
> political
> leadership could be sentenced to severe penalties under U.S.
> law, the
> death penalty if patients ripped from their beds and manacled
> on the
> floor happened to die as a result. The questions did not merit
> detectable inquiry or reflection. The same mainstream sources
> told us
> that the U.S. military "achieved nearly all their objectives
> well ahead
> of schedule," as "much of the city lay in smoking ruins." But
> it was
> not a complete success. There was little evidence of dead
> "packrats" in
> their "warrens" or on the streets, "an enduring mystery." U.S.
> forces
> did discover "the body of a woman on a street in Falluja, but
> it was
> unclear whether she was an Iraqi or a foreigner." The crucial
> question,
> apparently.
>
> Another front-page story quotes a senior Marine commander who
> says that
> the attack on Falluja "ought to go down in the history books."
> Perhaps
> it should. If so, we know on just what page of history it will
> find its
> place. Perhaps Falluja will appear right alongside Grozny [the
> destroyed capital of Chechnya], a city of about the same size,
> with a
> picture of Bush and Putin gazing into each other's souls. Those
> who
> praise or for that matter even tolerate all of this can select
> their
> own favorite pages of history.
>
> A Burnt-Out Shell of a Country
>
> The media accounts of the assault were not uniform. Qatar-based
> Al-Jazeera, the most important news channel in the Arab world,
> was
> harshly criticized by high US officials for having "emphasized
> civilian
> casualties" during the destruction of Falluja. The problem of
> independent media was later resolved when the channel was
> kicked out of
> Iraq in preparation for free elections.
>
> Turning beyond the U.S. mainstream, we discover also that "Dr.
> Sami
> al-Jumaili described how U.S. warplanes bombed the Central
> Health
> Centre in which he was working," killing thirty-five patients
> and
> twenty-four staff. His report was confirmed by an Iraqi
> reporter for
> Reuters and the BBC, and by Dr. Eiman al-Ani of Falluja General
> Hospital, who said that the entire health center, which he
> reached
> shortly after the attack, had collapsed on the patients. The
> attacking
> forces said that the report was "unsubstantiated." In another
> gross
> violation of international humanitarian law, even minimal
> decency, the
> U.S. military denied the Iraqi Red Crescent access to Falluja.
> Sir
> Nigel Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross,
> condemned
> the action as "hugely significant." It sets "a dangerous
> precedent," he
> said: "The Red Crescent had a mandate to meet the needs of the
> local
> population facing a huge crisis." Perhaps this additional crime
> was a
> reaction to a very unusual public statement by the
> International
> Committee of the Red Cross, condemning all sides in the war in
> Iraq for
> their "utter contempt for humanity."
>
> In what appears to be the first report of a visitor to Falluja
> after
> the operation was completed, Iraqi doctor Ali Fadhil said he
> found it
> "completely devastated." The modern city now "looked like a
> city of
> ghosts." Fadhil saw few dead bodies of Iraqi fighters in the
> streets;
> they had been ordered to abandon the city before the assault
> began.
> Doctors reported that the entire medical staff had been locked
> into the
> main hospital when the U.S. attack began, "tied up" under U.S.
> orders:
> "Nobody could get to the hospital and people were bleeding to
> death in
> the city." The attitudes of the invaders were summarized by a
> message
> written in lipstick on the mirror of a ruined home: "Fuck Iraq
> and
> every Iraqi in it." Some of the worst atrocities were committed
> by
> members of the Iraqi National Guard used by the invaders to
> search
> houses, mostly "poor Shias from the south... jobless and
> desperate,"
> probably "fan[ning] the seeds of a civil war."
>
> Embedded reporters arriving a few weeks later found some people
> "trickling back to Falluja," where they "enter a desolate world
> of
> skeletal buildings, tank-blasted homes, weeping power lines and
> severed
> palm trees." The ruined city of 250,000 was now "devoid of
> electricity,
> running water, schools or commerce," under a strict curfew, and
> "conspicuously occupied" by the invaders who had just
> demolished it and
> the local forces they had assembled. The few refugees who dared
> to
> return under tight military surveillance found "lakes of sewage
> in the
> streets. The smell of corpses inside charred buildings. No
> water or
> electricity. Long waits and thorough searches by U.S. troops at
> checkpoints. Warnings to watch out for land mines and booby
> traps.
> Occasional gunfire between troops and insurgents."
>
> Half a year later came perhaps the first visit by an
> international
> observer, Joe Carr of the Christian Peacemakers Team in
> Baghdad, whose
> previous experience had been in the Israeli-occupied
> Palestinian
> territories. Arriving on May 28, he found painful similarities:
> many
> hours of waiting at the few entry points, more for harassment
> than for
> security; regular destruction of produce in the devastated
> remains of
> the city where "food prices have dramatically increased because
> of the
> checkpoints"; blocking of ambulances transporting people for
> medical
> treatment; and other forms of random brutality familiar from
> the
> Israeli press. The ruins of Falluja, he wrote, are even worse
> than
> Rafah in the Gaza Strip, virtually destroyed by US- backed
> Israeli
> terror. The United States "has leveled entire neighborhoods,
> and about
> every third building is destroyed or damaged." Only one
> hospital with
> in-patient care survived the attack, but access was impeded by
> the
> occupying army, leading to many deaths in Falluja and rural
> areas.
> Sometimes dozens of people were packed into a "burned out
> shell." Only
> about a quarter of families whose homes were destroyed received
> some
> compensation, usually less than half of the cost for materials
> needed
> to rebuild them.
>
> The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler,
> accused
> U.S. and British troops in Iraq of "breaching international law
> by
> depriving civilians of food and water in besieged cities as
> they try to
> flush out militants" in Falluja and other cities attacked in
> subsequent
> months. U.S.-led forces "cut off or restricted food and water
> to
> encourage residents to flee before assaults," he informed the
> international press, "using hunger and deprivation of water as
> a weapon
> of war against the civilian population, [in] flagrant
> violation" of the
> Geneva Conventions. The U.S. public was largely spared the
> news.
>
> Even apart from such major war crimes as the assault on
> Falluja, there
> is more than enough evidence to support the conclusion of a
> professor
> of strategic studies at the Naval War College that the year
> 2004 "was a
> truly horrible and brutal one for hapless Iraq." Hatred of the
> United
> States, he continued, is now rampant in a country subjected to
> years of
> sanctions that had already led to "the destruction of the Iraqi
> middle
> class, the collapse of the secular educational system, and the
> growth
> of illiteracy, despair, and anomie [that] promoted an Iraqi
> religious
> revival [among] large numbers of Iraqis seeking succor in
> religion."
> Basic services deteriorated even more than they had under the
> sanctions. "Hospitals regularly run out of the most basic
> medicines...
> the facilities are in horrid shape, [and] scores of specialists
> and
> experienced physicians are leaving the country because they
> fear they
> are targets of violence or because they are fed up with the
> substandard
> working conditions."
>
> Meanwhile, "religion's role in Iraqi political life has
> ratcheted
> steadily higher since U.S.-led forces overthrew Mr. Hussein in
> 2003,"
> the Wall Street Journal reports. Since the invasion, "not a
> single
> political decision" has been made without Grand Ayatollah Ali
> al-Sistani's "tacit or explicit approval, say government
> officials,"
> while the "formerly little- known young rebel cleric" Muqtada
> al-Sadr
> has "fashioned a political and military movement that has drawn
> tens of
> thousands of followers in the south and in Baghdad's poorest
> slums."
>
> Similar developments have taken place in Sunni areas. The vote
> on
> Iraq's draft constitution in fall 2005 turned into "a battle of
> the
> mosques," with voters largely following religious edicts. Few
> Iraqis
> had even seen the document because the government had scarcely
> distributed any copies. The new constitution, the Wall Street
> Journal
> notes, has "far deeper Islamic underpinnings than Iraq's last
> one, a
> half century ago, which was based on [secular] French civil
> law," and
> had granted women "nearly equal rights" with men. All of this
> has now
> been reversed under the U.S. occupation.
>
> War Crimes and Casualty Counts
>
> The consequences of years of Western violence and strangulation
> are
> endlessly frustrating to civilized intellectuals, who are
> amazed to
> discover that, in the words of Edward Luttwak, "the vast
> majority of
> Iraqis, assiduous mosque-goers and semi-literate at best," are
> simply
> unable to "believe what for them is entirely incomprehensible:
> that
> foreigners have been unselfishly expending their own blood and
> treasure
> to help them." By definition, no evidence necessary.
>
> Commentators have lamented that the United States has changed
> "from a
> country that condemned torture and forbade its use to one that
> practices torture routinely." The actual history is far less
> benign.
> But torture, however horrifying, scarcely weighs in the balance
> in
> comparison with the war crimes at Falluja and elsewhere in
> Iraq, or the
> general effects of the U.S. and UK invasion. One illustration,
> noted in
> passing and quickly dismissed in the United States, is the
> careful
> study by prominent U.S. and Iraqi specialists published in the
> world's
> leading medical journal, the Lancet, in October 2004. The
> conclusions
> of the study, carried out on rather conservative assumptions,
> are that
> "the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of
> Iraq is
> probably about 100,000 people, and may be much higher." The
> figures
> include nearly 40,000 Iraqis killed as a direct result of
> combat or
> armed violence, according to a later Swiss review of the
> study's data.
> A subsequent study by Iraq Body Count found 25,000
> noncombatants
> reported killed in the first two years of the occupation -- in
> Baghdad,
> one in 500 citizens; in Falluja, one in 136. US-led forces
> killed 37
> percent, criminals 36 percent, "anti-occupation forces" 9
> percent.
> Killings doubled in the second year of the occupation. Most
> deaths were
> caused by explosive devices; two- thirds of these by air
> strikes. The
> estimates of Iraq Body Count are based on media reports, and
> are
> therefore surely well below the actual numbers, though shocking
> enough.
>
>
> Reviewing these reports along with the UNDP "Iraq Living
> Conditions
> Survey" (April 2005), British analyst Milan Rai concludes that
> the
> results are largely consistent, the apparent variation in
> numbers
> resulting primarily from differences in the specific topics
> investigated and the time periods covered. These conclUSions
> gain some
> support from a Pentagon study that estimated 26,000 Iraqi
> civilians and
> security forces killed and wounded < i>by insurgents since
> January
> 2004. The New York Times report of the Pentagon study also
> mentions
> several others, but omits the most important one, in the
> Lancet. It
> notes in passing that "no figures were provided for the number
> of
> Iraqis killed by American-led forces." The Times story appeared
> immediately after the day that had been set aside by
> international
> activists for commemoration of all Iraqi deaths, on the first
> anniversary of the release of the Lancet report.
>
> The scale of the catastrophe in Iraq is so extreme that it can
> barely
> be reported. Journalists are largely confined to the heavily
> fortified
> Green Zone in Baghdad, or else travel under heavy guard. There
> have
> been a few regular exceptions in the mainstream press, such as
> Robert
> Fisk and Patrick Cockburn [of the British newspaper The
> Independent],
> who face extreme hazards, and there are occasional indications
> of Iraqi
> opinion. One was a report on a nostalgic gathering of educated
> westernized Baghdad elites, where discussion turned to the
> sacking of
> Baghdad by Hulagu Khan and his vicious atrocities. A philosophy
> professor commented that "Hulagu was humane compared with the
> Americans," drawing some laughter, but "most of the guests
> seemed eager
> to avoid the subject of politics and violence, which dominate
> everyday
> life here." Instead they turned to past efforts to create an
> Iraqi
> national culture that would overcome the old ethnic- religious
> divisions to which Iraq is now "regressing" under the
> occupation, and
> discussed the destruction of the treasures of Iraqi and world
> civilization, a tragedy not experienced since the Mongol
> invasions.
>
> Additional effects of the invasion include the decline of the
> median
> income of Iraqis, from $255 in 2003 to about $144 in 2004, as
> well as
> "significant countrywide shortages of rice, sugar, milk, and
> infant
> formula," according to the U.N. World Food Program, which had
> warned in
> advance of the invasion that it would not be able to duplicate
> the
> efficient rationing system that had been in place under Saddam
> Hussein.
> Iraqi newspapers report that new rations contain metal filings,
> one
> consequence of the vast corruption under the U.S.-UK
> occupation. Acute
> malnutrition doubled within sixteen months of the occupation of
> Iraq,
> to the level of Burundi, well above Haiti or Uganda, a figure
> that
> "translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from
> 'wasting,'
> a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous
> deficiencies of protein." This is a country in which hundreds
> of
> thousands of children had already died as a consequence of the
> U.S.-
> and UK-led sanctions. In May 2005, U.N. rapporteur Jean Ziegler
> released a report of the Norwegian Institute for Applied Social
> Science
> confirming these figures. The relatively high nutritional
> levels of
> Iraqis in the 1970s and 1980s, even through the war with Iran,
> began to
> decline severely during the decade of the sanctions, with a
> further
> disastrous decline after the 2003 invasion.
>
> Meanwhile, violence against civilians extended beyond the
> occupiers and
> the insurgency. Washington Post reporters Anthony Shadid and
> Steve
> Fainaru reported that "Shiite and Kurdish militias, often
> operating as
> part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a
> wave of
> abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation,
> consolidating their control over territory across northern and
> southern
> Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and
> sectarian
> lines." One indicator of the scale of the catastrophe is the
> huge flood
> of refugees "fleeing violence and economic troubles," a million
> to
> Syria and Jordan alone since the U.S. invasion, most of them
> "professionals and secular moderates who could help with the
> practical
> task of getting the country to run well."
>
> The Lancet study estimating 100,000 probable deaths by October
> 2004
> elicited enough comment in England that the government had to
> issue an
> embarrassing denial, but in the United States virtual silence
> prevailed. The occasional oblique reference usually describes
> it as the
> "controversial" report that "as many as 100,000" Iraqis died as
> a
> result of the invasion. The figure of 100,000 was the most
> probable
> estimate, on conservative assumptions; it would be at least as
> accurate
> to describe it as the report that "as few as 100,000" died.
> Though the
> report was released at the height of the US presidential
> campaign, it
> appears that neither of the leading candidates was ever
> publicly
> questioned about it.
>
> The reaction follows the general pattern when massive
> atrocities are
> perpetrated by the wrong agent. A striking example is the
> Indochina
> wars. In the only poll (to my knowledge) in which people were
> asked to
> estimate the number of Vietnamese deaths, the mean estimate was
> 100,000, about 5 percent of the official figure; the actual
> toll is
> unknown, and of no more interest than the also unknown toll of
> casualties of U.S. chemical warfare. The authors of the study
> comment
> that it is as if college students in Germany estimated
> Holocaust deaths
> at 300,000, in which case we might conclude that there are some
> problems in Germany -- and if Germany ruled the world, some
> rather more
> serious problems. Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation
> Institute's
> Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"),
> is the
> co-founder of the American Empire Project.
>
> http://www.americanempireproject.com/
>
> to write to Tom Engelhardt
>
> http://www.tomdispatch.com/contact
>
Lets boil this down a little. Cheney has admitted that he pulled the
trigger. He hasn't yet said anything about the fact that he aimed the
shotgut. That is the key to this. If he were seriously hunting quail, they
are small targets, moving fast. He should have been seeing his target
before he shot; the presence of a large man dressed in orange should have
obscured the target. New media keep saying he "accidently" show Whittingon;
what they should be saying is he "carelessly" shot Whittington. I can think
of some other modifiers.
Too bad he missed out on basic training.
Steve
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Last Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney, an experienced hunter, was
> hunting quail with several well-heeled Republican acquaintances,
> including Texas lawyer Harry Whittington. The two men had been drinking
> throughout the afternoon, and at one point began to quarrel about a
> business venture of mutual interest which had gone awry. The argument
> became heated. Whittington sneered at Cheney?s declining public
> standing and the most recent disclosure, by Cheney?s former chief of
> staff Lewis Libby, that Libby had leaked classified information to the
> press at Cheney?s direction. When Cheney responded with an
> obscenity-laced remark, Whittington, a man who knows where many bodies
> are buried in Texas politics and business, suggested he might arrange
> for certain facts of a sensitive nature to become public knowledge.
> Cheney, enraged, stormed away, then turned, lowered his shotgun and
> discharged it, hitting Whittington?s face and upper body.
>
> Is that what happened on February 14 at the Armstrong Ranch in southern
> Texas? We have no idea, but it is no less likely than the official
> explanation. And the ?angry drunk? scenario would more plausibly
> explain both the long delay in reporting the event?which made it
> conveniently impossible to perform the blood alcohol test that would
> otherwise be routine in such an incident?and the obvious disarray in
> the White House for days afterwards.
>
> For all the media attention to the Cheney affair, it is remarkable that
> with virtual unanimity the official claim that the shooting was
> accidental has been uncritically accepted and reported as though it
> were established fact, despite the lack of any serious investigation or
> public presentation of the actual circumstances in which the vice
> president of the United States shot and seriously wounded another man.
>
> Until the migration of one of the shotgun pellets lodged in
> Whittington?s body triggered a heart attack on Tuesday, the incident
> was largely dismissed with joking references to the ?gang that
> couldn?t shoot straight? or criticism of a poor White House
> communications strategy. Even after the shift to a more serious tone,
> the major daily newspapers and the television networks continue to
> refer to the incident as an ?accidental shooting,? without either
> interviewing eyewitnesses or investigating any alternative theory of
> what took place.
>
> With Cheney?s interview Wednesday evening on Fox television, two
> conflicting accounts of the shooting have now been given. Kathleen
> Armstrong, daughter of multimillionaire ranch owner Anne Armstrong, a
> former ambassador in the Reagan administration, contacted a Corpus
> Christi, Texas newspaper Sunday to report Whittington had been shot
> accidentally. She put the responsibility for the incident on
> Whittington, indicating that he had wandered off the line maintained by
> his hunting partners and failed to announce himself when he returned
> from retrieving a quail.
>
> Three days later, Cheney abandoned the ?blame the victim? story and
> told Fox interviewer Britt Hume that he was the one responsible because
> he had pulled the trigger.
>
> Cheney also admitted to having a drink earlier that day, although he
> said it was only a single beer at lunch, five hours before the
> shooting. He denied that any alcohol was being consumed on the hunt.
>
> Cheney made an even more damaging admission, remarking that he
> ?didn?t know until Sunday morning that Harry was going to be all
> right.? This throws a different light on the decision not to make
> public any information about the shooting for nearly a full day.
>
> During that period, when Cheney and his aides could not be sure whether
> the vice president might be facing involuntary manslaughter charges,
> there were undoubtedly discussions about how to handle the
> story?perhaps even consideration of whether someone else might have
> to take the fall for the shooting. Only after Whittington was out of
> immediate danger was the press contacted with the news that Cheney had
> been the shooter.
>
> The police were also kept away during the first critical half-day.
> Secret Service agents contacted the local sheriff?s department
> immediately to report a shooting accident, but there is no indication
> that they supplied any details or identified the shooter.
>
> A captain in the sheriff?s department went to the ranch Saturday
> evening but was told the victim had been transported to a hospital in
> Corpus Christi. He left without interviewing any eyewitness.
>
> Two local policemen also arrived at the ranch, after learning of the
> shooting, but they were denied admission by ranch security guards, and
> went their way. Finally, at 8 a.m. Sunday?after Cheney had been
> assured that Whittington would survive?the vice president was
> interviewed by a sheriff?s deputy and made his first declaration that
> he had pulled the trigger.
>
> What is known about the circumstances of the shooting cast some doubt
> on the accident theory, especially given Cheney?s long experience as
> a hunter and the relative rarity of such incidents?only a handful
> during the most recent Texas hunting season.
>
> According to the account Cheney gave to Fox, Whittington was partially
> obscured because he was standing in a gully lower than the ground on
> which Cheney was standing. This suggests that Cheney, in order to hit
> Whittington, would have had to fire his blast either level or slightly
> downwards?a strange angle for shooting at a flushed quail rising into
> the sky.
>
> Press accounts suggest that Whittington was hit by as many as 150 to
> 200 pellets, meaning that he received nearly the full charge of
> birdshot from a single blast. This fact and the nature of the wounds
> seem to confirm the reports that Whittington was standing about 30
> yards from Cheney when the vice president opened fire: any closer, and
> the wounds would have been far more serious; much further away, and
> dispersion would have caused many of the shot pellets to miss.
>
> There are other aspects of the incident which appear to undercut the
> ?pure accident? theory. How could such an accident occur when the
> vice president was accompanied by his normal entourage of Secret
> Service and medical personnel?
>
> The role of the Secret Service is particularly puzzling: if Whittington
> was in range of Cheney?s gun, then Cheney was likewise in range of
> Whittington?s. How could the Secret Service have been unaware that a
> man armed with a loaded shotgun was approaching the vice president from
> an unexpected direction? If they were aware of Whittington?s
> movements, how could they have allowed the vice president to open fire
> on him?
>
> Whittington?s turn for the worse on Tuesday morning raises the
> possibility that he could suffer long-term physical consequences from
> the shooting, or even death. In either event, Cheney could be liable
> for criminal charges involving at least negligence and recklessness, or
> even involuntary manslaughter, a felony charge never before brought
> against so high-ranking a public official. His continuation in office
> under such circumstances would be in question.
>
> The press, however, has been virtually silent on this possibility. It
> has focused almost entirely on the subsequent handling of the public
> relations fallout, not on the underlying event in which a man was
> nearly killed by the vice president.
>
> In a rare exception, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, in a
> commentary Wednesday devoted to the exposure of illegal NSA spying,
> remarked in passing: ?Nobody died at Armstrong Ranch, but this
> incident reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy?s delay in informing
> Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile
> accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969. That story, and dozens of others
> about the Kennedy family, illustrates how wealthy, powerful people can
> behave as if they are above the law.?
>
> The comparison is an apt one, not only in its implicit questioning of
> the credibility of the account given by Cheney, but in its reference to
> the seeming immunity of the top echelons of American society from all
> normal legal and social constraints. There is indeed one law for the
> masses of ordinary people and quite another for the financial and
> political elite. If anything, this is more the case in the far more
> socially polarized America of 2006 than it was nearly four decades ago.
>
> Cheney?s four-day silence demonstrated the vice president?s
> arrogant indifference to public opinion. His eventual decision to give
> an interview with Fox News expresses both contempt for the public?s
> right to know and personal cowardice?Cheney is willing to be
> questioned only by a network which has repeatedly demonstrated a
> slavish political loyalty to the Bush administration and its
> ultra-right policies.
>
> The rejection of accountability?for the 9/11 attacks, for the lies
> which were used to engineer the war with Iraq, for the failures in the
> response to Hurricane Katrina, for the devastating social and fiscal
> impact of Bush?s tax cuts for the wealthy?is the hallmark not only
> of an administration, but of the ruling elite as a whole.
>
> In that sense, Cheney?s conduct at the Armstrong Ranch and its
> presentation by the media provide a vivid example of the social
> relations that prevail in contemporary America, ruled by a financial
> oligarchy that feels itself as far above the common people as the
> Russian Tsar or the French aristocracy before 1789. There is one set of
> laws, one set of prerogatives for the modern equivalent of the ruling
> estates of the feudal past, and another for the rabble.
>
On 23 Feb 2006 21:39:19 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
<<Bullshit deleted>>
What a thoroughgoing load of pure - uncomposted - crap.
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:41:50 GMT, "Gooey TARBALLS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Now this is a great topic for wordsmiths.
>
>Now, let's look at the other responses this topic generated.
>
and how many of you quoted every word of the original babble and cross posted
when replying...
It would be nice if people spent 10% of the time they take learning how to use a
saw to learn a bit about news groups and related software.. YMWV
Mac
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm
"Dad" <[email protected]> writes:
>Another perfect man heard from, lots of them come out of the woodwork
>when someone else makes a mistake. How many words did you misuse and
>misspell in your post? Perfection is great and basic.
Perfection has nothing to do with it. It's basic hunter
safety. Something that when I was in Jr. High, all males
were required to take (northern wisconsin, early 70's).
While I disagree with Mr. Cheney on just about everything,
he did the right thing when he stated that he, and he alone
was responsible for the accidental shooting. He should be
admired for that.
scott
>
>"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Lets boil this down a little. Cheney has admitted that he pulled
>> the trigger. He hasn't yet said anything about the fact that he
>> aimed the shotgut. That is the key to this. If he were seriously
>> hunting quail, they are small targets, moving fast. He should have
>> been seeing his target before he shot; the presence of a large man
>> dressed in orange should have obscured the target. New media keep
>> saying he "accidently" show Whittingon; what they should be saying
>> is he "carelessly" shot Whittington. I can think of some other
>> modifiers.
>>
>> Too bad he missed out on basic training.
>> Steve
>
>
Mapanari wrote:
> dnoyeB <[email protected]> wrotenews:gY2dnWL6BoZRNGneRVn-
> [email protected]:
>
>
>>Mapanari wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Smith <[email protected]> wrotenews:atp8v197hatfdoq18e4fpninkgkfc180sn@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We have no idea
>>>>
>>>>I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
>>>>
>>>>Mike Smith
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The fact that this story has any legs at all goes to show have far the
>>>liberals have dumbed down everything in America.
>>>
>>>Are the liberals really that desperate to lose another and yet another
>>>electoin in an unended stream of defeats?
>>>
>>>What next? 28 Guagegate?
>>>
>>
>>
>>I have to disagree with you. Im a liberal and I don't feel desperate at
>>all. If you had said democrats rathar than liberals then your statement
>>would be true. In other words this is about politics not policy.
>>
>>The story is probably doctored. Everything from the White house is
>>doctored. However, I don't think there is much blood in this turnip to
>>be squeezing it so hard...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> "Doctored"????? There is nothing to doctor. It's like making a giant case
> of Bush accidently stepping on the French Ambassador's wifes toe in the
> reception line....
>
> "American French Relations take a DIVE! Bush assaults innocent, peace-
> loving helpless French women in the White house! More details at 11."
>
> To actually say "doctored" simply means the chasm between the uber left and
> all other thining people is widening and that your disconnect with reality
> is permanant and final.
>
> It would actually be funny, if you ignorant bastards wern't so plentiful
> and running cities like Austin, Boulder and San Francisco.
>
>
Why do I have to be an ignorant bastard?
--
Thank you,
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
"Dad" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Perfection has nothing to do with it. It's basic hunter
>> safety. Something that when I was in Jr. High, all males
>> were required to take (northern wisconsin, early 70's).
>>
>> While I disagree with Mr. Cheney on just about everything,
>> he did the right thing when he stated that he, and he alone
>> was responsible for the accidental shooting. He should be
>> admired for that.
>>
>> scott
>Never been Quail hunting, have you? You mean the politely correct
>safety classes put on by the pussy's that want to cover their ass? If
>you had to take one to handle a gun you shouldn't be allowed to have
>one.
Excuse me? I hunted deer, pheasant, squirrel, quail and gopher[*]
from the age of 11 to 21. Never shot anybody, either. 12ga, 20ga,
.22cal and model 94 (in 30-30) depending on game.
scott
[*] got $0.50 a head from the county as a bounty. $2.00 for a beaver
tail.
[email protected] wrotenews:1140089207.923371.283770
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> In that sense, Cheney?s conduct at the Armstrong Ranch and its
> presentation by the media provide a vivid example of the social
> relations that prevail in contemporary America, ruled by a financial
> oligarchy that feels itself as far above the common people as the
> Russian Tsar or the French aristocracy before 1789. There is one set of
> laws, one set of prerogatives for the modern equivalent of the ruling
> estates of the feudal past, and another for the rabble.
>
>
It sure is a slow newsday in Liberalandia.
What next?
"Bush takes a dump every morning! Right wing conspiracy to clog up the
white house plumbing?"
Is there anything more pitiful, more dysfunctional and sad to see liberal
media on a slow newsday?
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
Mike Smith <[email protected]> wrotenews:atp8v197hatfdoq18e4fpninkgkfc180sn@
4ax.com:
> On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> We have no idea
>
> I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
>
> Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
>
> Mike Smith
>
The fact that this story has any legs at all goes to show have far the
liberals have dumbed down everything in America.
Are the liberals really that desperate to lose another and yet another
electoin in an unended stream of defeats?
What next? 28 Guagegate?
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
"surfgeo" <[email protected]> wrotenews:1140101609.019689.305630
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> i too am sick and tired of the liberals crying conspiracy here!
>
>
> Cheney is a smart man. noone, NO ONE, not even a yankee as dumb as ted
> kennedy would EVER try to kill someone with 28 guage bird shot at 30
> yds.
>
> what a bunch of idiots! quail rarely fly "straight up". they are
> ground-dwellers and never fly any distance , they simply bolt at low
> altitude about 50 yds or so and land again.
>
> david
> www.dcgphotography.com
>
>
The problem is, is that liberals are so dumb,uneducated and ignorant that
all they heard was "shotgun" and their mental image is just one of
Hollywood...the shotgun blast that lifts a guy off the floor like a
crouching tiger hidden dragonshit type of movie and blows him to pieces.
No one ever bothered to explain to these ignorati that this is HOLLYWOOD.
Getting into estoterical (for them) facts like guages, loads, size of shot
etc is just beyond them.
Whenever they get hysterical about stupid shit like this, another million
Reagan Democrats vow to never vote liberal/democrat again and another
million NASCAR guys decide to actually go and vote against democrats in the
next election.
So, we should all say THANKS to the teeming hordes of liberal ignorati
here, and around the world.
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
dnoyeB <[email protected]> wrotenews:gY2dnWL6BoZRNGneRVn-
[email protected]:
> Mapanari wrote:
>> Mike Smith <[email protected]> wrotenews:atp8v197hatfdoq18e4fpninkgkfc180sn@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>We have no idea
>>>
>>>I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
>>>
>>>Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
>>>
>>>Mike Smith
>>>
>>
>>
>> The fact that this story has any legs at all goes to show have far the
>> liberals have dumbed down everything in America.
>>
>> Are the liberals really that desperate to lose another and yet another
>> electoin in an unended stream of defeats?
>>
>> What next? 28 Guagegate?
>>
>
>
> I have to disagree with you. Im a liberal and I don't feel desperate at
> all. If you had said democrats rathar than liberals then your statement
> would be true. In other words this is about politics not policy.
>
> The story is probably doctored. Everything from the White house is
> doctored. However, I don't think there is much blood in this turnip to
> be squeezing it so hard...
>
>
>
>
>
"Doctored"????? There is nothing to doctor. It's like making a giant case
of Bush accidently stepping on the French Ambassador's wifes toe in the
reception line....
"American French Relations take a DIVE! Bush assaults innocent, peace-
loving helpless French women in the White house! More details at 11."
To actually say "doctored" simply means the chasm between the uber left and
all other thining people is widening and that your disconnect with reality
is permanant and final.
It would actually be funny, if you ignorant bastards wern't so plentiful
and running cities like Austin, Boulder and San Francisco.
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
[email protected] wrotenews:1140102569.562669.269300
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> Remember, years ago, when this site was about woodworking?
>
>
It still is. I"m working on my woodie as we speak....
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
[email protected] wrotenews:1140114035.275564.164600
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Not really. But it does that various seeming right-wingers are kinda
> hyper-sensitive about one of "theirs" getting treatment similar to what
> they deem appropriate to the opposition.
Not even close. The liberals, communists and socialists control all the
media.
This is so silly, it should have been a laugher bit mention on the evening
news.
But when Bill Clinton lies before a federal grand jury and gets impeached,
the screams, howls and virturpitude against normal Americans was
tremendous, with "buh, buh, buh, it's just SEXXXXX <wail>" as the mantra to
excuse the crime.
When Nixon's aids lied before a grand jury, they went to jail, some for
years.
>
> Grow up, and get over it- these folks have made it a part of the
> territory. Cheney has only compounded his own problem.
What has he done? Not "answered questions" from the left wing media?
They're like paparazzi...no matter what a white, republican, middle class,
anti-immigration, mono-culturalist has to say, it's always wrong, sneared
at, belittled and made fun of.
He can't win. Why try? It'll just be spun, lied, edited and make out to
be a fool, a criminal, Tony Soprano's brother or worse.
>
> You forget, in all this liberal-labeling, that the center is where the
> votes are. You might say "It's the center, stupid!" Not the neo-cons or
> other wingnuts.
The "center" you like to call it, is what all liberals refer as "The vast
right wing conspiracy".
The center, from your viewpoint, is Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and others.
All others are flaming right wing fanatics, christians or worse.
>
> J
>
>
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
Mapanari wrote:
> The liberals, communists and socialists control
> all the media.
From some I hear the media is controled by the leftist elite, then
from others I hear about the media in bed with those crazy right
wingers and all their Jew friends. Personally, I get my news from Jay
Leno... at least he has a sense of humor ;-)
Joe Barta
"Ron M." <[email protected]> wrotenews:1140144419.551732.26430
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>>what a bunch of idiots! quail rarely fly "straight up". they are
>>ground-dwellers and never fly any distance , they simply bolt at low
>>altitude about 50 yds or so and land again
>
> You've obviously never seen a quail before.
>
> In any case, it's disgusting how the news media and the
> sound-bite-specialist Democrats are chomping on this little incident
> like blood-crazed sharks. Disgusting, but not surprising. The instant
> I heard about this, I thought, "Oh, lord, here it comes...." Sigh.
>
> Ron M.
>
>
The instant I heard it I though "Oh, that's funny, ok, what else is going
on in the world?".
The self-defeating media frenzy is good for most honest real American; it's
unmasking the liberal agenda and psyops campaign of the far left media for
what they really are.
Every year that goes by, the old die hard liberals keep shooting themselves
in their feet and our feet, and going "huh?".
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
dnoyeB <[email protected]>
wrotenews:[email protected]:
> Mapanari wrote:
>> dnoyeB <[email protected]> wrotenews:gY2dnWL6BoZRNGneRVn-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>
>>>Mapanari wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mike Smith <[email protected]> wrotenews:atp8v197hatfdoq18e4fpninkgkfc180sn@
>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>We have no idea
>>>>>
>>>>>I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike Smith
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The fact that this story has any legs at all goes to show have far the
>>>>liberals have dumbed down everything in America.
>>>>
>>>>Are the liberals really that desperate to lose another and yet another
>>>>electoin in an unended stream of defeats?
>>>>
>>>>What next? 28 Guagegate?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have to disagree with you. Im a liberal and I don't feel desperate
>>>at all. If you had said democrats rathar than liberals then your
>>>statement would be true. In other words this is about politics not
>>>policy.
>>>
>>>The story is probably doctored. Everything from the White house is
>>>doctored. However, I don't think there is much blood in this turnip to
>>>be squeezing it so hard...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Doctored"????? There is nothing to doctor. It's like making a giant
>> case of Bush accidently stepping on the French Ambassador's wifes toe
>> in the reception line....
>>
>> "American French Relations take a DIVE! Bush assaults innocent, peace-
>> loving helpless French women in the White house! More details at 11."
>>
>> To actually say "doctored" simply means the chasm between the uber left
>> and all other thining people is widening and that your disconnect with
>> reality is permanant and final.
>>
>> It would actually be funny, if you ignorant bastards wern't so
>> plentiful and running cities like Austin, Boulder and San Francisco.
>>
>>
>
> Why do I have to be an ignorant bastard?
>
"Doctored". That one word makes you an ignorant bastard.
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrotenews:Xns976CAB08B7D54jbartaapknet@
207.115.17.102:
> Mapanari wrote:
>
>> The liberals, communists and socialists control
>> all the media.
>
> From some I hear the media is controled by the leftist elite, then
> from others I hear about the media in bed with those crazy right
> wingers and all their Jew friends. Personally, I get my news from Jay
> Leno... at least he has a sense of humor ;-)
>
> Joe Barta
>
The liberal left is kind of like a helpless 7 year old wilful, spoiled
child standing on a train track getting run over time and time again by the
American voting public.
They can't figure out why they keep getting run over and why it hurts so
much, so they whenever a republican on the sidelines screams out "You
stupid idiot, get off that left train track" they, instead of paying
attention, can only stand rooted and yell back "You stupid doodoo head.
I'm not on the left track, I'm on the MIDDLE track!"
And the train,
she just keep on a'rolling....
Every honest non partisan study about the media has proven time and time
again that the media is left to far left in slant and bias. 100's of
studies.
So, what does Stalin, Pol Pot and the media do when they want to spin?
"ATTACK, ATTACK, again and again!".
It's a very old tactic. Attack your attackers, and if you control the
media, all attacks against you die away and your asinine counter attacks
gather lots of steam and legs.
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
"Rondo" <[email protected]>
wrotenews:[email protected]:
> Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the
> woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled suicide. Ed Willey
> died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton
> groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was
> involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
Kathleen Willey told several friends that she was RAPED, not groped. They
advised her to go to the police, Kathleen told them that she was afraid
to.
After her husband was murdered as a warning, she shut up, moved away,
refused all interviews and no one has been able to get another word out of
her since.
>
> Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by
> jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a
> convicted drug distributor.
This one was interesting. Several witness said that they saw him
struggling, couldn't see the other person and all of a sudden he screamed
and was "thrown out" the window.
Those witnesses have never been seen again or found and the police
mysteriously failed to take down their names, or if they did, the paperwork
got lost.
>
> Florence Martin - Accountant & subcontractor for the CIA, was related to
> the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three
> gunshot wounds.
That whole thing was facinating. 60 minutes did two epis on Barry Seal,
trying to tie him to the former Bush admin, which he was. But when the
liberal left wing lying 60 Minutes/Dan The Liar Rather found out about the
ties to Clinton, they stopped all investigations and it was 20/20 that did
the last story about the mysterious death of him later on.
And there it stopped, dead.
>
> Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was
> Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the
> head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
Ruled "pre-partum depression".
Just kidding! <s>
> Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, Death was no
> accident.
Wasn't he gunned down outside his Lousiana home by profession hit men?
>
> Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in
> the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his
> car had hit a utility pole.
>
> Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a
> reported suicide and his report was never released.
>
> Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994
> when his plane exploded.
Sure seems like if you were in business with Clinton, traveling by small
plane, military plane, personal car and being alone in a hotel room is not
a very good idea!
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
Shardonay <[email protected]> wrotenews:_CyVf.14293$uX5.2466
@tornado.texas.rr.com:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> YEY!!
>>
>> its out! out! out! out!
>>
>> The first MAINSTREAM show is talking about 911
>> being a USA Military inside job!!
>
> Yes, that makes perfect sense. The military planned 9-11 so that they
> could then go... and um, fight... and um, well... DIE.
>
>
Die? Sheeet, you really are young, stupid, and, oh, right, a woman.
Every career military person prays daily for a nice good long lasting war.
See, the job of the military is to fight and kill and no one thinks they're
going to get whacked.
So, to get promotions, more pay, excitement, a change of pace, something
diferent, medals, stories to tell bored young nephews and uncaring people
at an old folks home in 50 years, you have to have a war!
And btw...war is a natural condition. Absence of war is un natural,
historically speaking.
And before you go "well, we're more evolved now", by some miracle, we
"evolved" so fast in only 20 years out of 1 million, what a miracle!
--
b{-_-}d
I'm listening!
---Mapanari---
"Gooey TARBALLS" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:1ZE_f.10555$gy2.5838@trnddc08:
> The Nam and Iraq are done in our name. We are al equal. Our right to
> comment shall not be diminished by lack nor surfeit of education.
>
> Iraq has the oil.
>
> Quick, anyone know what Indo China had to exploit?
>
molybdenum and tungsten
Both require a *huge* up front investment in the extraction process. Not
the sort of situation where you want to take a chance on some "Peoples
Republic" nationalizing your investment just about the time it starts to
pay off.
Unfortunately our attempt at nation building never did achieve the
stability needed to make the investment worthwhile.
I've heard Somalia is sitting on heavy oil reserves, but nobody is going to
start drilling in a region where the rowdy locals change their government
more often than they change their socks.
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perfection has nothing to do with it. It's basic hunter
> safety. Something that when I was in Jr. High, all males
> were required to take (northern wisconsin, early 70's).
>
> While I disagree with Mr. Cheney on just about everything,
> he did the right thing when he stated that he, and he alone
> was responsible for the accidental shooting. He should be
> admired for that.
>
> scott
Never been Quail hunting, have you? You mean the politely correct
safety classes put on by the pussy's that want to cover their ass? If
you had to take one to handle a gun you shouldn't be allowed to have
one.
--
Dad
One more gun is just enough, maybe.
[email protected] wrote:
> YEY!!
>
> its out! out! out! out!
>
> The first MAINSTREAM show is talking about 911
> being a USA Military inside job!!
Yes, that makes perfect sense. The military planned 9-11 so that they
could then go... and um, fight... and um, well... DIE.
Steve Peterson wrote:
> Lets boil this down a little. Cheney has admitted that he pulled the
> trigger. He hasn't yet said anything about the fact that he aimed the
> shotgut. That is the key to this. If he were seriously hunting quail, they
> are small targets, moving fast. He should have been seeing his target
> before he shot; the presence of a large man dressed in orange should have
> obscured the target. New media keep saying he "accidently" show Whittingon;
> what they should be saying is he "carelessly" shot Whittington. I can think
> of some other modifiers.
>
> Too bad he missed out on basic training.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
I thought that Whittington hadn't announced his return to the line from
retrieving a bird. yes? no? I'm not a hunter and am just repeating
what I remember from the news yesterday.
And of course Cheney is ultimately responsible, which he already admitted.
dave
>
>I'd get shot again, if it meant we could hunt together for another day.
>
====================
Honestly I stopped reading when I read this line ...turned to my
left.. and looked at my gun rack and zeroed in on the 2 Shotguns and 3
rifles that were my Dads.... and smiled...
ALL I CAN SAY... is.
DAMN RIGHT... I would too...
Miss the old man AND I will never forget him...
Liberals, NeoCons... whatever... Dads are special.. especially mine
may he rest in peace..
Bob G.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:31:22 -0800, "iceman" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Yeah, almost as stupid as the Vince Foster "conspiracy" the wingnut
>> media used to drag down the gravel road behind a pickup.
>>
>> I don't know about the rest of this stuff but I got ten bucks says
>> alcohol/sh!*-facedness is the root of it all.
>>
>> I haven't hunted since I was a teenager/early twenties on the farm. My
>> friends and I never had hunting classes/training and never did anything
>> as STUPID or IRRESPONSIBLE as this. Couse then again we were SOBER.
>>
>> I find it interesting that Dick saw the need to mention he had one beer
>> at lunch. Yeah, right. And you put off your interview with the police
>> how long?
>>
>>
>
>That's it--it's unbelievable.
Yep, the barking moonbats are unbelievable...
Totally stupid and willing to expose their obvious stupidity to the
world.
Amazing.
Mike Smith
On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> We have no idea
I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
Mike Smith
"Gooey TARBALLS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:GvP_f.4996$wH1.2104@trnddc03...
> "A fear of a common enemy (communism),"
>
> I was looking for the reason the French were there.
>
> RUBBER PLANTATIONS - Michelin Tire
>
> We got there for the same reasons we refused to help the Russian people's
> revolt; changed the Pledge of Allegiance to include the words "under God"
> and supported a State of Israel and its tyranny against the peoples it
> dispossessed. And, because we had created the Military Industrial Complex
> Ike warned us about.
I knew it - when you're around kooks, it doesn't take long before one of
them starts blaming the Jews for something or other.
<clipped>
Have you actually read it?
I don't think so!!!!
[email protected]
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:30:23 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Isn't it amazing how much effort they spend proving it to us over and over.
Isn't it amazing how few people have the brains to know that this is
not a forum for red-neck politics, but a woodworking newsgroup. I
mean, how bloody stupid can you get?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yeah, almost as stupid as the Vince Foster "conspiracy" the wingnut
> media used to drag down the gravel road behind a pickup.
>
> I don't know about the rest of this stuff but I got ten bucks says
> alcohol/sh!*-facedness is the root of it all.
>
> I haven't hunted since I was a teenager/early twenties on the farm. My
> friends and I never had hunting classes/training and never did anything
> as STUPID or IRRESPONSIBLE as this. Couse then again we were SOBER.
>
> I find it interesting that Dick saw the need to mention he had one beer
> at lunch. Yeah, right. And you put off your interview with the police
> how long?
>
>
That's it--it's unbelievable. That's why the possibility of Cheney being
the patsy has to be considered. Despite his political and criminal weight,
the Elite over him who did the other assassinations have even more. Look
for Cheney to step down within the week.....which is obviously part of the
deal. There's definitely a coverup--the story is impossible.
> Mike Smith wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > We have no idea
>>
>> I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
>>
>> Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
>>
>> Mike Smith
>
In rec.woodworking Stan de SD <[email protected]> wrote:
: Academia is filled with people whose
: pet "theories" fall apart in the real world.
As is politics. And business.
- Andy Barss
David wrote:
> I thought that Whittington hadn't announced his return to the line from
> retrieving a bird. yes? no? I'm not a hunter and am just repeating
> what I remember from the news yesterday.
>
> And of course Cheney is ultimately responsible, which he already admitted.
I look at it as being just like a car accident: there are always
degrees of fault. Cheney ran the light, and Whittington didn't look for
crazies while approaching it.
er
--
email not valid
Mapanari wrote:
> Mike Smith <[email protected]> wrotenews:atp8v197hatfdoq18e4fpninkgkfc180sn@
> 4ax.com:
>
>
>>On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We have no idea
>>
>>I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
>>
>>Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
>>
>>Mike Smith
>>
>
>
> The fact that this story has any legs at all goes to show have far the
> liberals have dumbed down everything in America.
>
> Are the liberals really that desperate to lose another and yet another
> electoin in an unended stream of defeats?
>
> What next? 28 Guagegate?
>
I have to disagree with you. Im a liberal and I don't feel desperate at
all. If you had said democrats rathar than liberals then your statement
would be true. In other words this is about politics not policy.
The story is probably doctored. Everything from the White house is
doctored. However, I don't think there is much blood in this turnip to
be squeezing it so hard...
--
Thank you,
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
>>He lives a life in academic isolation and is
>> clueless as to how those outside of higher education go about their
>> lives.
as opposed to Bush who lived all his life next to the farmer in Midwest or
to the worker in Detroit's factories, or to the teacher in the poor
neighborhoods of most American cities ...and really..I mean REALLY feels for
the poor guys ..
or Dick, Rummy, all the neocon intellectuals ...
"Stan de SD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nolo Contendre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Are you people aware that Noam Chomsky is an academic and a linguist?
>> He has no more credentials to comment - on the country which he hates -
>> than does anyone else. He lives a life in academic isolation and is
>> clueless as to how those outside of higher education go about their
>> lives.
>
> Unfortunately, he's not the only one. Academia is filled with people whose
> pet "theories" fall apart in the real world.
>
>
I see you came over to a Guns Ng to spread your bull shit! Why don't you grow
up?
Jim
And yes this only deserves a top post!
"iceman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Yeah, almost as stupid as the Vince Foster "conspiracy" the wingnut
>> media used to drag down the gravel road behind a pickup.
>>
>> I don't know about the rest of this stuff but I got ten bucks says
>> alcohol/sh!*-facedness is the root of it all.
>>
>> I haven't hunted since I was a teenager/early twenties on the farm. My
>> friends and I never had hunting classes/training and never did anything
>> as STUPID or IRRESPONSIBLE as this. Couse then again we were SOBER.
>>
>> I find it interesting that Dick saw the need to mention he had one beer
>> at lunch. Yeah, right. And you put off your interview with the police
>> how long?
>>
>>
>
> That's it--it's unbelievable. That's why the possibility of Cheney being the
> patsy has to be considered. Despite his political and criminal weight, the
> Elite over him who did the other assassinations have even more. Look for
> Cheney to step down within the week.....which is obviously part of the deal.
> There's definitely a coverup--the story is impossible.
>
>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>> On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> > We have no idea
>>>
>>> I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
>>>
>>> Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
>>>
>>> Mike Smith
>>
>
>
Take the tinfoil off your head and get a life.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Last Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney, an experienced hunter, was
> hunting quail with several well-heeled Republican acquaintances,
> including Texas lawyer Harry Whittington. The two men had been drinking
> throughout the afternoon, and at one point began to quarrel about a
> business venture of mutual interest which had gone awry. The argument
> became heated. Whittington sneered at Cheney?s declining public
> standing and the most recent disclosure, by Cheney?s former chief of
> staff Lewis Libby, that Libby had leaked classified information to the
> press at Cheney?s direction. When Cheney responded with an
> obscenity-laced remark, Whittington, a man who knows where many bodies
> are buried in Texas politics and business, suggested he might arrange
> for certain facts of a sensitive nature to become public knowledge.
> Cheney, enraged, stormed away, then turned, lowered his shotgun and
> discharged it, hitting Whittington?s face and upper body.
>
> Is that what happened on February 14 at the Armstrong Ranch in southern
> Texas? We have no idea, but it is no less likely than the official
> explanation. And the ?angry drunk? scenario would more plausibly
> explain both the long delay in reporting the event?which made it
> conveniently impossible to perform the blood alcohol test that would
> otherwise be routine in such an incident?and the obvious disarray in
> the White House for days afterwards.
>
> For all the media attention to the Cheney affair, it is remarkable that
> with virtual unanimity the official claim that the shooting was
> accidental has been uncritically accepted and reported as though it
> were established fact, despite the lack of any serious investigation or
> public presentation of the actual circumstances in which the vice
> president of the United States shot and seriously wounded another man.
>
> Until the migration of one of the shotgun pellets lodged in
> Whittington?s body triggered a heart attack on Tuesday, the incident
> was largely dismissed with joking references to the ?gang that
> couldn?t shoot straight? or criticism of a poor White House
> communications strategy. Even after the shift to a more serious tone,
> the major daily newspapers and the television networks continue to
> refer to the incident as an ?accidental shooting,? without either
> interviewing eyewitnesses or investigating any alternative theory of
> what took place.
>
> With Cheney?s interview Wednesday evening on Fox television, two
> conflicting accounts of the shooting have now been given. Kathleen
> Armstrong, daughter of multimillionaire ranch owner Anne Armstrong, a
> former ambassador in the Reagan administration, contacted a Corpus
> Christi, Texas newspaper Sunday to report Whittington had been shot
> accidentally. She put the responsibility for the incident on
> Whittington, indicating that he had wandered off the line maintained by
> his hunting partners and failed to announce himself when he returned
> from retrieving a quail.
>
> Three days later, Cheney abandoned the ?blame the victim? story and
> told Fox interviewer Britt Hume that he was the one responsible because
> he had pulled the trigger.
>
> Cheney also admitted to having a drink earlier that day, although he
> said it was only a single beer at lunch, five hours before the
> shooting. He denied that any alcohol was being consumed on the hunt.
>
> Cheney made an even more damaging admission, remarking that he
> ?didn?t know until Sunday morning that Harry was going to be all
> right.? This throws a different light on the decision not to make
> public any information about the shooting for nearly a full day.
>
> During that period, when Cheney and his aides could not be sure whether
> the vice president might be facing involuntary manslaughter charges,
> there were undoubtedly discussions about how to handle the
> story?perhaps even consideration of whether someone else might have
> to take the fall for the shooting. Only after Whittington was out of
> immediate danger was the press contacted with the news that Cheney had
> been the shooter.
>
> The police were also kept away during the first critical half-day.
> Secret Service agents contacted the local sheriff?s department
> immediately to report a shooting accident, but there is no indication
> that they supplied any details or identified the shooter.
>
> A captain in the sheriff?s department went to the ranch Saturday
> evening but was told the victim had been transported to a hospital in
> Corpus Christi. He left without interviewing any eyewitness.
>
> Two local policemen also arrived at the ranch, after learning of the
> shooting, but they were denied admission by ranch security guards, and
> went their way. Finally, at 8 a.m. Sunday?after Cheney had been
> assured that Whittington would survive?the vice president was
> interviewed by a sheriff?s deputy and made his first declaration that
> he had pulled the trigger.
>
> What is known about the circumstances of the shooting cast some doubt
> on the accident theory, especially given Cheney?s long experience as
> a hunter and the relative rarity of such incidents?only a handful
> during the most recent Texas hunting season.
>
> According to the account Cheney gave to Fox, Whittington was partially
> obscured because he was standing in a gully lower than the ground on
> which Cheney was standing. This suggests that Cheney, in order to hit
> Whittington, would have had to fire his blast either level or slightly
> downwards?a strange angle for shooting at a flushed quail rising into
> the sky.
>
> Press accounts suggest that Whittington was hit by as many as 150 to
> 200 pellets, meaning that he received nearly the full charge of
> birdshot from a single blast. This fact and the nature of the wounds
> seem to confirm the reports that Whittington was standing about 30
> yards from Cheney when the vice president opened fire: any closer, and
> the wounds would have been far more serious; much further away, and
> dispersion would have caused many of the shot pellets to miss.
>
> There are other aspects of the incident which appear to undercut the
> ?pure accident? theory. How could such an accident occur when the
> vice president was accompanied by his normal entourage of Secret
> Service and medical personnel?
>
> The role of the Secret Service is particularly puzzling: if Whittington
> was in range of Cheney?s gun, then Cheney was likewise in range of
> Whittington?s. How could the Secret Service have been unaware that a
> man armed with a loaded shotgun was approaching the vice president from
> an unexpected direction? If they were aware of Whittington?s
> movements, how could they have allowed the vice president to open fire
> on him?
>
> Whittington?s turn for the worse on Tuesday morning raises the
> possibility that he could suffer long-term physical consequences from
> the shooting, or even death. In either event, Cheney could be liable
> for criminal charges involving at least negligence and recklessness, or
> even involuntary manslaughter, a felony charge never before brought
> against so high-ranking a public official. His continuation in office
> under such circumstances would be in question.
>
> The press, however, has been virtually silent on this possibility. It
> has focused almost entirely on the subsequent handling of the public
> relations fallout, not on the underlying event in which a man was
> nearly killed by the vice president.
>
> In a rare exception, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, in a
> commentary Wednesday devoted to the exposure of illegal NSA spying,
> remarked in passing: ?Nobody died at Armstrong Ranch, but this
> incident reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy?s delay in informing
> Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile
> accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969. That story, and dozens of others
> about the Kennedy family, illustrates how wealthy, powerful people can
> behave as if they are above the law.?
>
> The comparison is an apt one, not only in its implicit questioning of
> the credibility of the account given by Cheney, but in its reference to
> the seeming immunity of the top echelons of American society from all
> normal legal and social constraints. There is indeed one law for the
> masses of ordinary people and quite another for the financial and
> political elite. If anything, this is more the case in the far more
> socially polarized America of 2006 than it was nearly four decades ago.
>
> Cheney?s four-day silence demonstrated the vice president?s
> arrogant indifference to public opinion. His eventual decision to give
> an interview with Fox News expresses both contempt for the public?s
> right to know and personal cowardice?Cheney is willing to be
> questioned only by a network which has repeatedly demonstrated a
> slavish political loyalty to the Bush administration and its
> ultra-right policies.
>
> The rejection of accountability?for the 9/11 attacks, for the lies
> which were used to engineer the war with Iraq, for the failures in the
> response to Hurricane Katrina, for the devastating social and fiscal
> impact of Bush?s tax cuts for the wealthy?is the hallmark not only
> of an administration, but of the ruling elite as a whole.
>
> In that sense, Cheney?s conduct at the Armstrong Ranch and its
> presentation by the media provide a vivid example of the social
> relations that prevail in contemporary America, ruled by a financial
> oligarchy that feels itself as far above the common people as the
> Russian Tsar or the French aristocracy before 1789. There is one set of
> laws, one set of prerogatives for the modern equivalent of the ruling
> estates of the feudal past, and another for the rabble.
>
"Guess who" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:30:23 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Isn't it amazing how much effort they spend proving it to us over and
>>over.
>
> Isn't it amazing how few people have the brains to know that this is
> not a forum for red-neck politics, but a woodworking newsgroup. I
> mean, how bloody stupid can you get?
>
Threads like this make is supremely easy to block the newest crop of
crossposting assholes, though. :)
Not only have you not fired the weapon, but you don't hunt flying birds. How
do you folks think about passing judgement when you aren't quail hunters, or
pheasant hunters or any other flushing prey?
Got to be a bit bent left IMHO, otherwise it's a hunting accident that
pissed off the big news agencies cause they didn't get the news early enough
to make the ratings game.
Nothing more, nothing less.
"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lets boil this down a little. Cheney has admitted that he pulled the
> trigger. He hasn't yet said anything about the fact that he aimed the
> shotgut. That is the key to this. If he were seriously hunting quail,
> they are small targets, moving fast. He should have been seeing his
> target before he shot; the presence of a large man dressed in orange
> should have obscured the target. New media keep saying he "accidently"
> show Whittingon; what they should be saying is he "carelessly" shot
> Whittington. I can think of some other modifiers.
>
> Too bad he missed out on basic training.
>
> Steve
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Last Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney, an experienced hunter, was
>> hunting quail with several well-heeled Republican acquaintances,
>> including Texas lawyer Harry Whittington. The two men had been drinking
>> throughout the afternoon, and at one point began to quarrel about a
>> business venture of mutual interest which had gone awry. The argument
>> became heated. Whittington sneered at Cheney?s declining public
>> standing and the most recent disclosure, by Cheney?s former chief of
>> staff Lewis Libby, that Libby had leaked classified information to the
>> press at Cheney?s direction. When Cheney responded with an
>> obscenity-laced remark, Whittington, a man who knows where many bodies
>> are buried in Texas politics and business, suggested he might arrange
>> for certain facts of a sensitive nature to become public knowledge.
>> Cheney, enraged, stormed away, then turned, lowered his shotgun and
>> discharged it, hitting Whittington?s face and upper body.
>>
>> Is that what happened on February 14 at the Armstrong Ranch in southern
>> Texas? We have no idea, but it is no less likely than the official
>> explanation. And the ?angry drunk? scenario would more plausibly
>> explain both the long delay in reporting the event?which made it
>> conveniently impossible to perform the blood alcohol test that would
>> otherwise be routine in such an incident?and the obvious disarray in
>> the White House for days afterwards.
>>
>> For all the media attention to the Cheney affair, it is remarkable that
>> with virtual unanimity the official claim that the shooting was
>> accidental has been uncritically accepted and reported as though it
>> were established fact, despite the lack of any serious investigation or
>> public presentation of the actual circumstances in which the vice
>> president of the United States shot and seriously wounded another man.
>>
>> Until the migration of one of the shotgun pellets lodged in
>> Whittington?s body triggered a heart attack on Tuesday, the incident
>> was largely dismissed with joking references to the ?gang that
>> couldn?t shoot straight? or criticism of a poor White House
>> communications strategy. Even after the shift to a more serious tone,
>> the major daily newspapers and the television networks continue to
>> refer to the incident as an ?accidental shooting,? without either
>> interviewing eyewitnesses or investigating any alternative theory of
>> what took place.
>>
>> With Cheney?s interview Wednesday evening on Fox television, two
>> conflicting accounts of the shooting have now been given. Kathleen
>> Armstrong, daughter of multimillionaire ranch owner Anne Armstrong, a
>> former ambassador in the Reagan administration, contacted a Corpus
>> Christi, Texas newspaper Sunday to report Whittington had been shot
>> accidentally. She put the responsibility for the incident on
>> Whittington, indicating that he had wandered off the line maintained by
>> his hunting partners and failed to announce himself when he returned
>> from retrieving a quail.
>>
>> Three days later, Cheney abandoned the ?blame the victim? story and
>> told Fox interviewer Britt Hume that he was the one responsible because
>> he had pulled the trigger.
>>
>> Cheney also admitted to having a drink earlier that day, although he
>> said it was only a single beer at lunch, five hours before the
>> shooting. He denied that any alcohol was being consumed on the hunt.
>>
>> Cheney made an even more damaging admission, remarking that he
>> ?didn?t know until Sunday morning that Harry was going to be all
>> right.? This throws a different light on the decision not to make
>> public any information about the shooting for nearly a full day.
>>
>> During that period, when Cheney and his aides could not be sure whether
>> the vice president might be facing involuntary manslaughter charges,
>> there were undoubtedly discussions about how to handle the
>> story?perhaps even consideration of whether someone else might have
>> to take the fall for the shooting. Only after Whittington was out of
>> immediate danger was the press contacted with the news that Cheney had
>> been the shooter.
>>
>> The police were also kept away during the first critical half-day.
>> Secret Service agents contacted the local sheriff?s department
>> immediately to report a shooting accident, but there is no indication
>> that they supplied any details or identified the shooter.
>>
>> A captain in the sheriff?s department went to the ranch Saturday
>> evening but was told the victim had been transported to a hospital in
>> Corpus Christi. He left without interviewing any eyewitness.
>>
>> Two local policemen also arrived at the ranch, after learning of the
>> shooting, but they were denied admission by ranch security guards, and
>> went their way. Finally, at 8 a.m. Sunday?after Cheney had been
>> assured that Whittington would survive?the vice president was
>> interviewed by a sheriff?s deputy and made his first declaration that
>> he had pulled the trigger.
>>
>> What is known about the circumstances of the shooting cast some doubt
>> on the accident theory, especially given Cheney?s long experience as
>> a hunter and the relative rarity of such incidents?only a handful
>> during the most recent Texas hunting season.
>>
>> According to the account Cheney gave to Fox, Whittington was partially
>> obscured because he was standing in a gully lower than the ground on
>> which Cheney was standing. This suggests that Cheney, in order to hit
>> Whittington, would have had to fire his blast either level or slightly
>> downwards?a strange angle for shooting at a flushed quail rising into
>> the sky.
>>
>> Press accounts suggest that Whittington was hit by as many as 150 to
>> 200 pellets, meaning that he received nearly the full charge of
>> birdshot from a single blast. This fact and the nature of the wounds
>> seem to confirm the reports that Whittington was standing about 30
>> yards from Cheney when the vice president opened fire: any closer, and
>> the wounds would have been far more serious; much further away, and
>> dispersion would have caused many of the shot pellets to miss.
>>
>> There are other aspects of the incident which appear to undercut the
>> ?pure accident? theory. How could such an accident occur when the
>> vice president was accompanied by his normal entourage of Secret
>> Service and medical personnel?
>>
>> The role of the Secret Service is particularly puzzling: if Whittington
>> was in range of Cheney?s gun, then Cheney was likewise in range of
>> Whittington?s. How could the Secret Service have been unaware that a
>> man armed with a loaded shotgun was approaching the vice president from
>> an unexpected direction? If they were aware of Whittington?s
>> movements, how could they have allowed the vice president to open fire
>> on him?
>>
>> Whittington?s turn for the worse on Tuesday morning raises the
>> possibility that he could suffer long-term physical consequences from
>> the shooting, or even death. In either event, Cheney could be liable
>> for criminal charges involving at least negligence and recklessness, or
>> even involuntary manslaughter, a felony charge never before brought
>> against so high-ranking a public official. His continuation in office
>> under such circumstances would be in question.
>>
>> The press, however, has been virtually silent on this possibility. It
>> has focused almost entirely on the subsequent handling of the public
>> relations fallout, not on the underlying event in which a man was
>> nearly killed by the vice president.
>>
>> In a rare exception, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, in a
>> commentary Wednesday devoted to the exposure of illegal NSA spying,
>> remarked in passing: ?Nobody died at Armstrong Ranch, but this
>> incident reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy?s delay in informing
>> Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile
>> accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969. That story, and dozens of others
>> about the Kennedy family, illustrates how wealthy, powerful people can
>> behave as if they are above the law.?
>>
>> The comparison is an apt one, not only in its implicit questioning of
>> the credibility of the account given by Cheney, but in its reference to
>> the seeming immunity of the top echelons of American society from all
>> normal legal and social constraints. There is indeed one law for the
>> masses of ordinary people and quite another for the financial and
>> political elite. If anything, this is more the case in the far more
>> socially polarized America of 2006 than it was nearly four decades ago.
>>
>> Cheney?s four-day silence demonstrated the vice president?s
>> arrogant indifference to public opinion. His eventual decision to give
>> an interview with Fox News expresses both contempt for the public?s
>> right to know and personal cowardice?Cheney is willing to be
>> questioned only by a network which has repeatedly demonstrated a
>> slavish political loyalty to the Bush administration and its
>> ultra-right policies.
>>
>> The rejection of accountability?for the 9/11 attacks, for the lies
>> which were used to engineer the war with Iraq, for the failures in the
>> response to Hurricane Katrina, for the devastating social and fiscal
>> impact of Bush?s tax cuts for the wealthy?is the hallmark not only
>> of an administration, but of the ruling elite as a whole.
>>
>> In that sense, Cheney?s conduct at the Armstrong Ranch and its
>> presentation by the media provide a vivid example of the social
>> relations that prevail in contemporary America, ruled by a financial
>> oligarchy that feels itself as far above the common people as the
>> Russian Tsar or the French aristocracy before 1789. There is one set of
>> laws, one set of prerogatives for the modern equivalent of the ruling
>> estates of the feudal past, and another for the rabble.
>>
>
>
On 16 Feb 2006 06:21:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>Yeah, almost as stupid as the Vince Foster "conspiracy" the wingnut
>media used to drag down the gravel road behind a pickup.
>
>I don't know about the rest of this stuff but I got ten bucks says
>alcohol/sh!*-facedness is the root of it all.
>
>I haven't hunted since I was a teenager/early twenties on the farm. My
>friends and I never had hunting classes/training and never did anything
>as STUPID or IRRESPONSIBLE as this. Couse then again we were SOBER.
>
>I find it interesting that Dick saw the need to mention he had one beer
>at lunch. Yeah, right. And you put off your interview with the police
>how long?
>
================
20 minutes. before the Locals arrived... !!!!
Bob G.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 07:49:39 -0500, "George" <George@least> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In Ireland they were impressed, but
>> US-american republicans and patriots
>> dare not look the truth in the eye.
>>
>> http://www.newstalk106.ie/noam-chomskys.html
>>
>> these days ANGST is as american as AbuGraibh..
>>
>
>I know I'm afraid. Afraid I'll puke.
>
Yep, Chomsky is as genuine as a 3 dollar bill. Rails against the
pentagon and war machine while he built his fortune on research contracts
done for the pentagon. Rails against inheritance and the flow of wealth
from generation to generation, but, with a net worth of $2 million himself
has set up his own trust, assuring that *his* heirs get their share of
daddy's estate without that pesky interference from Uncle Sam's inheritance
taxes. Just like many on the left, when they say, "... must protect ...",
one always needs to append the words "for me" to the end of their
statements.
Now, why were we supposed to somehow listen with bated breath to what
Chomsky had to say?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
How sad it must be to have no friends. Go to the mountain and play
with your
friend sweetie.
--
IMPORTANT: This post is intended for the use of the individual
group(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons
with low
self-esteem, no sense of humor or irrational religious beliefs. If you
are
not the intended recipient any dissemination, distribution or copying
of
this email is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and
constitutes an irritating social faux pas.
Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context
somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or
grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the
transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on
borrowed time, let me tell you.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> One of the persistent ideological teachings in the United States
> is that our society is notably free of ideological teachings.
>
> Ideology is something imported from alien lands
> or brewed at home by allegedly sinister groups, as in
> "Communist ideology."
>
> But in fact, we Americans are ideologically indoctrinated
> into certain precepts about patriotism, elections,
> world leadership, the self-made rich, and all that garbage
> about the free market.
>
> We also entertain notions about class, race,
> and gender relations and about the democratic
> distribution of power in our pluralistic society.
>
> Well, most of these kinds of beliefs are themselves ideological.
>
> Yet they're widely circulated and remain largely free of critical
> examination, being seen as representing the natural
> order of things.
>
> These ideologies don't just emerge spontaneously and
> full blown, they're disseminated through
> the dominant institutions of society. They
> serve as instruments of social control.
>
> q.e.d.
Reynolds brand?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> change of subject.
>
> The BEST COUNTRY ON EARTH... the United States of ... Ah ... Armaged,
> ah, Aggress.., ah Angst, ah Atrocities, ah, ah America... yeah that's
> it.
>
> Americans!! Americanos!
>
> Muchas Gracias for your kind attention.
>
>
>
> http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/abug-f21.shtml
>
> US media drops Abu Ghraib torture issue
>
> By David Walsh
>
> 21 February 2006
>
> Horrifying images of systematic US military abuse of Iraqi detainees at
> Abu Ghraib prison were aired last week on Australian television
To a laugh track.
BFD.
The world is growing weary of sensitive muslms, screw 'em.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:54:40 GMT, Mike Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 16 Feb 2006 03:26:47 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> We have no idea
>
>I boiled this rant down to it's essence.
>
>Yes, liberals and socialists are this stupid...
>
>Mike Smith
============================
Have to agree Mike... VERY stupid...!
Bob
Now this is a great topic for wordsmiths.
Now, let's look at the other responses this topic generated.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20598
>
> Tom Engelhardt TomDispatch.com
>
> Tomgram: Returning to the scene of the crime
>
> Noam Chomsky on war crimes in Iraq
>
> In the Vietnam era, the subject of war crimes was the last to arrive
> and the first to depart. When, in 1971 in Detroit, Vietnam Veterans
> Against the War convened its Winter Soldier Investigation into U.S. war
> crimes in Southeast Asia, it was roundly ignored by the media. Over 100
> veterans gave firsthand testimony to war crimes they either committed
> or witnessed. Beyond the unbearable nature of their testimony, the
> hearings were startling for the fact that here were men who yearned to
> take some responsibility for what they had done. But while it was, by
> then, possible for Americans to accept the GI as a victim in Vietnam,
> it proved impossible for most Americans to accept him as a human being
> taking responsibility for a crime against humanity. There was no place
> for this in the American imagination, it seemed, no less for the
> thought that the planning and prosecution of the war were potential
> crimes committed by our leaders. Evidently there still is none, which
> is why it's important to follow Noam Chomsky back into the Iraq of
> recent years to consider the American occupation of that country in the
> context of war crimes.
> The piece that follows is an excerpt from Chomsky's new book, Failed
> States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, which is
> officially published on this very day. It is Chomsky at his best, a
> superb tour (de force) of a world in which the BUSh
> administration has regularly asserted its right to launch "preventive"
> military interventions against "failed" and "rogue" states, while
> increasingly taking on the characteristics of those failed and rogue
> states itself. It will be an indispensable volume for any library. (You
> can check out a Chomsky discussion of it at Democracy Now!)
>
> Returning to the Scene of the Crime
>
> War Crimes in Iraq
>
> By Noam Chomsky
>
> [This piece is adapted from Chapter 2 of Noam Chomsky's newest book,
> Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (New
> York: Metropolitan Books, 2006).]
>
> In 2002, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales passed on to Bush a
> memorandum on torture by the Justice Department's Office of Legal
> Counsel (OLC). As noted by constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson:
> "According to the OLC, 'acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to
> the level of torture... Physical pain amounting to torture must be
> equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical
> injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even
> death.'" Levinson goes on to say that in the view of Jay Bybee, then
> head of the OLC, "The infliction of anything less intense than such
> extreme pain would not, technically speaking, be torture at all. It
> would merely be inhuman and degrading treatment, a subject of little
> apparent concern to the Bush administration's lawyers."
>
> Gonzales further advised President Bush to effectively rescind the
> Geneva Conventions, which, despite being "the supreme law of the land"
> and the foundation of contemporary international law, contained
> provisions Gonzales determined to be "quaint" and "obsolete."
> Rescinding the conventions, he informed Bush, "substantially reduces
> the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
> Passed in 1996, the act carries severe penalties for "grave breaches"
> of the conventions: the death penalty, "if death results to the victim"
> of the breach. Gonzales was later appointed to be attorney general and
> would probably have been a Supreme Court nominee if Bush's constituency
> did not regard him as "too liberal."
>
> How to Destroy a City to Save It
>
> Gonzales's legal advice about protecting Bush from the threat of
> prosecution under the War Crimes Act was proven sound not long after he
> gave it, in a case far more severe even than the torture scandals. In
> November 2004, US occupation forces launched their second major attack
> on the city of Falluja. The press reported major war crimes instantly,
> with approval. The attack began with a bombing campaign intended to
> drive out all but the adult male population; men ages fifteen to
> forty-five who attempted to flee Falluja were turned back. The plans
> resembled the preliminary stage of the Srebrenica massacre, though the
> Serb attackers trucked women and children out of the city instead of
> bombing them out. While the preliminary bombing was under way, Iraqi
> journalist Nermeen al-Mufti reported from "the city of minarets [which]
> once echoed the Euphrates in its beauty and calm [with its] plentiful
> water and lush greenery... a summer resort for Iraqis [where people
> went] for leisure, for a swim at the nearby Habbaniya lake, for a kebab
> meal." She described the fate of victims of these bombing attacks in
> which sometimes whole families, including pregnant women and babies,
> unable to flee, along with many others, were killed because the
> attackers who ordered their flight had cordoned off the city, closing
> the exit roads.
>
> Al-Mufti asked residents whether there were foreign fighters in
> Falluja. One man said that "he had heard that there were Arab fighters
> in the city, but he never saw any of them." Then he heard that they had
> left. "Regardless of the motives of those fighters, they have provided
> a pretext for the city to be slaughtered," he continued, and "it is our
> right to resist." Another said that "some Arab brothers were among us,
> but when the shelling intensified, we asked them to leave and they
> did," and then asked a question of his own: "Why has America given
> itself the right to call on UK and Australian and other armies for help
> and we don't have the same right?"
>
> It would be interesting to ask how often that question has been raised
> in Western commentary and reporting. Or how often the analogous
> question was raised in the Soviet press in the 1980s, about
> Afghanistan. How often was a term like "foreign fighters" used to refer
> to the invading armies? How often did reporting and commentary stray
> from the assumption that the only conceivable question is how well "our
> side" is doing, and what the prospects are for "our success"? It is
> hardly necessary to investigate. The assumptions are cast in iron. Even
> to entertain a question about them would be unthinkable, proof of
> "support for terror" or "blaming all the problems of the world on
> America/Russia," or some other familiar refrain.
>
> After several weeks of bombing, the United States began its ground
> attack in Falluja. It opened with the conquest of the Falluja General
> Hospital. The front-page story in the New York Times reported that
> "patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed
> soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their
> hands behind their backs." An accompanying photograph depicted the
> scene. It was presented as a meritorious achievement. "The offensive
> also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the
> militants: Falluja General Hospital, with its stream of reports of
> civilian casualties." Plainly such a propaganda weapon is a legitimate
> target, particularly when "inflated civilian casualty figures" --
> inflated because our leader so declared -- had "inflamed opinion
> throughout the country, driving up the political costs of the
> conflict." The word "conflict" is a common euphemism for U.S.
> aggression, as when we read on the same pages that "now, the Americans
> are rushing in engineers who will begin rebuilding what the conflict
> has just destroyed" -- just "the conflict," with no agent, like a
> hurricane.
>
> Some relevant documents passed unmentioned, perhaps because they too
> are considered quaint and obsolete: for example, the provision of the
> Geneva Conventions stating that "fixed establishments and mobile
> medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be
> attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the
> Parties to the conflict." Thus the front page of the world's leading
> newspaper was cheerfully depicting war crimes for which the political
> leadership could be sentenced to severe penalties under U.S. law, the
> death penalty if patients ripped from their beds and manacled on the
> floor happened to die as a result. The questions did not merit
> detectable inquiry or reflection. The same mainstream sources told us
> that the U.S. military "achieved nearly all their objectives well ahead
> of schedule," as "much of the city lay in smoking ruins." But it was
> not a complete success. There was little evidence of dead "packrats" in
> their "warrens" or on the streets, "an enduring mystery." U.S. forces
> did discover "the body of a woman on a street in Falluja, but it was
> unclear whether she was an Iraqi or a foreigner." The crucial question,
> apparently.
>
> Another front-page story quotes a senior Marine commander who says that
> the attack on Falluja "ought to go down in the history books." Perhaps
> it should. If so, we know on just what page of history it will find its
> place. Perhaps Falluja will appear right alongside Grozny [the
> destroyed capital of Chechnya], a city of about the same size, with a
> picture of Bush and Putin gazing into each other's souls. Those who
> praise or for that matter even tolerate all of this can select their
> own favorite pages of history.
>
> A Burnt-Out Shell of a Country
>
> The media accounts of the assault were not uniform. Qatar-based
> Al-Jazeera, the most important news channel in the Arab world, was
> harshly criticized by high US officials for having "emphasized civilian
> casualties" during the destruction of Falluja. The problem of
> independent media was later resolved when the channel was kicked out of
> Iraq in preparation for free elections.
>
> Turning beyond the U.S. mainstream, we discover also that "Dr. Sami
> al-Jumaili described how U.S. warplanes bombed the Central Health
> Centre in which he was working," killing thirty-five patients and
> twenty-four staff. His report was confirmed by an Iraqi reporter for
> Reuters and the BBC, and by Dr. Eiman al-Ani of Falluja General
> Hospital, who said that the entire health center, which he reached
> shortly after the attack, had collapsed on the patients. The attacking
> forces said that the report was "unsubstantiated." In another gross
> violation of international humanitarian law, even minimal decency, the
> U.S. military denied the Iraqi Red Crescent access to Falluja. Sir
> Nigel Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross, condemned
> the action as "hugely significant." It sets "a dangerous precedent," he
> said: "The Red Crescent had a mandate to meet the needs of the local
> population facing a huge crisis." Perhaps this additional crime was a
> reaction to a very unusual public statement by the International
> Committee of the Red Cross, condemning all sides in the war in Iraq for
> their "utter contempt for humanity."
>
> In what appears to be the first report of a visitor to Falluja after
> the operation was completed, Iraqi doctor Ali Fadhil said he found it
> "completely devastated." The modern city now "looked like a city of
> ghosts." Fadhil saw few dead bodies of Iraqi fighters in the streets;
> they had been ordered to abandon the city before the assault began.
> Doctors reported that the entire medical staff had been locked into the
> main hospital when the U.S. attack began, "tied up" under U.S. orders:
> "Nobody could get to the hospital and people were bleeding to death in
> the city." The attitudes of the invaders were summarized by a message
> written in lipstick on the mirror of a ruined home: "Fuck Iraq and
> every Iraqi in it." Some of the worst atrocities were committed by
> members of the Iraqi National Guard used by the invaders to search
> houses, mostly "poor Shias from the south... jobless and desperate,"
> probably "fan[ning] the seeds of a civil war."
>
> Embedded reporters arriving a few weeks later found some people
> "trickling back to Falluja," where they "enter a desolate world of
> skeletal buildings, tank-blasted homes, weeping power lines and severed
> palm trees." The ruined city of 250,000 was now "devoid of electricity,
> running water, schools or commerce," under a strict curfew, and
> "conspicuously occupied" by the invaders who had just demolished it and
> the local forces they had assembled. The few refugees who dared to
> return under tight military surveillance found "lakes of sewage in the
> streets. The smell of corpses inside charred buildings. No water or
> electricity. Long waits and thorough searches by U.S. troops at
> checkpoints. Warnings to watch out for land mines and booby traps.
> Occasional gunfire between troops and insurgents."
>
> Half a year later came perhaps the first visit by an international
> observer, Joe Carr of the Christian Peacemakers Team in Baghdad, whose
> previous experience had been in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian
> territories. Arriving on May 28, he found painful similarities: many
> hours of waiting at the few entry points, more for harassment than for
> security; regular destruction of produce in the devastated remains of
> the city where "food prices have dramatically increased because of the
> checkpoints"; blocking of ambulances transporting people for medical
> treatment; and other forms of random brutality familiar from the
> Israeli press. The ruins of Falluja, he wrote, are even worse than
> Rafah in the Gaza Strip, virtually destroyed by US- backed Israeli
> terror. The United States "has leveled entire neighborhoods, and about
> every third building is destroyed or damaged." Only one hospital with
> in-patient care survived the attack, but access was impeded by the
> occupying army, leading to many deaths in Falluja and rural areas.
> Sometimes dozens of people were packed into a "burned out shell." Only
> about a quarter of families whose homes were destroyed received some
> compensation, usually less than half of the cost for materials needed
> to rebuild them.
>
> The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, accused
> U.S. and British troops in Iraq of "breaching international law by
> depriving civilians of food and water in besieged cities as they try to
> flush out militants" in Falluja and other cities attacked in subsequent
> months. U.S.-led forces "cut off or restricted food and water to
> encourage residents to flee before assaults," he informed the
> international press, "using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon
> of war against the civilian population, [in] flagrant violation" of the
> Geneva Conventions. The U.S. public was largely spared the news.
>
> Even apart from such major war crimes as the assault on Falluja, there
> is more than enough evidence to support the conclusion of a professor
> of strategic studies at the Naval War College that the year 2004 "was a
> truly horrible and brutal one for hapless Iraq." Hatred of the United
> States, he continued, is now rampant in a country subjected to years of
> sanctions that had already led to "the destruction of the Iraqi middle
> class, the collapse of the secular educational system, and the growth
> of illiteracy, despair, and anomie [that] promoted an Iraqi religious
> revival [among] large numbers of Iraqis seeking succor in religion."
> Basic services deteriorated even more than they had under the
> sanctions. "Hospitals regularly run out of the most basic medicines...
> the facilities are in horrid shape, [and] scores of specialists and
> experienced physicians are leaving the country because they fear they
> are targets of violence or because they are fed up with the substandard
> working conditions."
>
> Meanwhile, "religion's role in Iraqi political life has ratcheted
> steadily higher since U.S.-led forces overthrew Mr. Hussein in 2003,"
> the Wall Street Journal reports. Since the invasion, "not a single
> political decision" has been made without Grand Ayatollah Ali
> al-Sistani's "tacit or explicit approval, say government officials,"
> while the "formerly little- known young rebel cleric" Muqtada al-Sadr
> has "fashioned a political and military movement that has drawn tens of
> thousands of followers in the south and in Baghdad's poorest slums."
>
> Similar developments have taken place in Sunni areas. The vote on
> Iraq's draft constitution in fall 2005 turned into "a battle of the
> mosques," with voters largely following religious edicts. Few Iraqis
> had even seen the document because the government had scarcely
> distributed any copies. The new constitution, the Wall Street Journal
> notes, has "far deeper Islamic underpinnings than Iraq's last one, a
> half century ago, which was based on [secular] French civil law," and
> had granted women "nearly equal rights" with men. All of this has now
> been reversed under the U.S. occupation.
>
> War Crimes and Casualty Counts
>
> The consequences of years of Western violence and strangulation are
> endlessly frustrating to civilized intellectuals, who are amazed to
> discover that, in the words of Edward Luttwak, "the vast majority of
> Iraqis, assiduous mosque-goers and semi-literate at best," are simply
> unable to "believe what for them is entirely incomprehensible: that
> foreigners have been unselfishly expending their own blood and treasure
> to help them." By definition, no evidence necessary.
>
> Commentators have lamented that the United States has changed "from a
> country that condemned torture and forbade its use to one that
> practices torture routinely." The actual history is far less benign.
> But torture, however horrifying, scarcely weighs in the balance in
> comparison with the war crimes at Falluja and elsewhere in Iraq, or the
> general effects of the U.S. and UK invasion. One illustration, noted in
> passing and quickly dismissed in the United States, is the careful
> study by prominent U.S. and Iraqi specialists published in the world's
> leading medical journal, the Lancet, in October 2004. The conclusions
> of the study, carried out on rather conservative assumptions, are that
> "the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is
> probably about 100,000 people, and may be much higher." The figures
> include nearly 40,000 Iraqis killed as a direct result of combat or
> armed violence, according to a later Swiss review of the study's data.
> A subsequent study by Iraq Body Count found 25,000 noncombatants
> reported killed in the first two years of the occupation -- in Baghdad,
> one in 500 citizens; in Falluja, one in 136. US-led forces killed 37
> percent, criminals 36 percent, "anti-occupation forces" 9 percent.
> Killings doubled in the second year of the occupation. Most deaths were
> caused by explosive devices; two- thirds of these by air strikes. The
> estimates of Iraq Body Count are based on media reports, and are
> therefore surely well below the actual numbers, though shocking enough.
>
>
> Reviewing these reports along with the UNDP "Iraq Living Conditions
> Survey" (April 2005), British analyst Milan Rai concludes that the
> results are largely consistent, the apparent variation in numbers
> resulting primarily from differences in the specific topics
> investigated and the time periods covered. These conclUSions gain some
> support from a Pentagon study that estimated 26,000 Iraqi civilians and
> security forces killed and wounded < i>by insurgents since January
> 2004. The New York Times report of the Pentagon study also mentions
> several others, but omits the most important one, in the Lancet. It
> notes in passing that "no figures were provided for the number of
> Iraqis killed by American-led forces." The Times story appeared
> immediately after the day that had been set aside by international
> activists for commemoration of all Iraqi deaths, on the first
> anniversary of the release of the Lancet report.
>
> The scale of the catastrophe in Iraq is so extreme that it can barely
> be reported. Journalists are largely confined to the heavily fortified
> Green Zone in Baghdad, or else travel under heavy guard. There have
> been a few regular exceptions in the mainstream press, such as Robert
> Fisk and Patrick Cockburn [of the British newspaper The Independent],
> who face extreme hazards, and there are occasional indications of Iraqi
> opinion. One was a report on a nostalgic gathering of educated
> westernized Baghdad elites, where discussion turned to the sacking of
> Baghdad by Hulagu Khan and his vicious atrocities. A philosophy
> professor commented that "Hulagu was humane compared with the
> Americans," drawing some laughter, but "most of the guests seemed eager
> to avoid the subject of politics and violence, which dominate everyday
> life here." Instead they turned to past efforts to create an Iraqi
> national culture that would overcome the old ethnic- religious
> divisions to which Iraq is now "regressing" under the occupation, and
> discussed the destruction of the treasures of Iraqi and world
> civilization, a tragedy not experienced since the Mongol invasions.
>
> Additional effects of the invasion include the decline of the median
> income of Iraqis, from $255 in 2003 to about $144 in 2004, as well as
> "significant countrywide shortages of rice, sugar, milk, and infant
> formula," according to the U.N. World Food Program, which had warned in
> advance of the invasion that it would not be able to duplicate the
> efficient rationing system that had been in place under Saddam Hussein.
> Iraqi newspapers report that new rations contain metal filings, one
> consequence of the vast corruption under the U.S.-UK occupation. Acute
> malnutrition doubled within sixteen months of the occupation of Iraq,
> to the level of Burundi, well above Haiti or Uganda, a figure that
> "translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from 'wasting,'
> a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous
> deficiencies of protein." This is a country in which hundreds of
> thousands of children had already died as a consequence of the U.S.-
> and UK-led sanctions. In May 2005, U.N. rapporteur Jean Ziegler
> released a report of the Norwegian Institute for Applied Social Science
> confirming these figures. The relatively high nutritional levels of
> Iraqis in the 1970s and 1980s, even through the war with Iran, began to
> decline severely during the decade of the sanctions, with a further
> disastrous decline after the 2003 invasion.
>
> Meanwhile, violence against civilians extended beyond the occupiers and
> the insurgency. Washington Post reporters Anthony Shadid and Steve
> Fainaru reported that "Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as
> part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of
> abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation,
> consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern
> Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and sectarian
> lines." One indicator of the scale of the catastrophe is the huge flood
> of refugees "fleeing violence and economic troubles," a million to
> Syria and Jordan alone since the U.S. invasion, most of them
> "professionals and secular moderates who could help with the practical
> task of getting the country to run well."
>
> The Lancet study estimating 100,000 probable deaths by October 2004
> elicited enough comment in England that the government had to issue an
> embarrassing denial, but in the United States virtual silence
> prevailed. The occasional oblique reference usually describes it as the
> "controversial" report that "as many as 100,000" Iraqis died as a
> result of the invasion. The figure of 100,000 was the most probable
> estimate, on conservative assumptions; it would be at least as accurate
> to describe it as the report that "as few as 100,000" died. Though the
> report was released at the height of the US presidential campaign, it
> appears that neither of the leading candidates was ever publicly
> questioned about it.
>
> The reaction follows the general pattern when massive atrocities are
> perpetrated by the wrong agent. A striking example is the Indochina
> wars. In the only poll (to my knowledge) in which people were asked to
> estimate the number of Vietnamese deaths, the mean estimate was
> 100,000, about 5 percent of the official figure; the actual toll is
> unknown, and of no more interest than the also unknown toll of
> casualties of U.S. chemical warfare. The authors of the study comment
> that it is as if college students in Germany estimated Holocaust deaths
> at 300,000, in which case we might conclude that there are some
> problems in Germany -- and if Germany ruled the world, some rather more
> serious problems. Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's
> Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the
> co-founder of the American Empire Project.
>
> http://www.americanempireproject.com/
>
> to write to Tom Engelhardt
>
> http://www.tomdispatch.com/contact
>
"SgtSilicon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Punctuation mistakes are acceptable to a certain degree. Shooting
> other people while hunting type mistakes are not. It's too bad you do
> not see a difference.
We all see the difference between you and a sane man!
Jim
>
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:16:26 -0500, "Dad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Another perfect man heard from, lots of them come out of the woodwork
>>when someone else makes a mistake. How many words did you misuse and
>>misspell in your post? Perfection is great and basic.
>>
>>"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Lets boil this down a little. Cheney has admitted that he pulled
>>> the trigger. He hasn't yet said anything about the fact that he
>>> aimed the shotgut. That is the key to this. If he were seriously
>>> hunting quail, they are small targets, moving fast. He should have
>>> been seeing his target before he shot; the presence of a large man
>>> dressed in orange should have obscured the target. New media keep
>>> saying he "accidently" show Whittingon; what they should be saying
>>> is he "carelessly" shot Whittington. I can think of some other
>>> modifiers.
>>>
>>> Too bad he missed out on basic training.
>>> Steve
>>
>