Saturday, August 13, 2005

The Taguba Report: The Truth Is Out There, from Sy, to Alex, to Me, to You! (And you can't just Right it off.)

People want to know: "Where'd you hear that?"

Maybe because Left works harder on cross-referencing obscure evidence - which can be easily challenged by willful ignorance and political bias, and maybe because we generously admit it is actually possible to be wrong... maybe that's why we find ourselves on the defensive.

With the Right, it's easier: "It's the truth! It's on TV! All my friends know!"

So, there is no pressure to challenge anything. In fact, they have internally made it un-cool to look at anything but mild rebukes of official policy as credible, and have broadened that thinking to the point where anyone disagreeing gets tossed into the same pile of "liberals" who can be trusted.

Family who can't be trusted.
Friends who can't be trusted.
Americans who can't be trusted.

To wit: none of the arguments, no matter how carefully researched or reasoned, need to be maturely and soberly dealt with: ignorance is in style baby! The pressure's on to tune-in, turn-on, and drop-out of reality! Despite the value to a democracy of citizens taking the time to present a wealth of evidence, let alone the value of an open dialectic, the situation is simple: half the country thinks the other half are liars, while the other half think the other half are idiots.

They're not "both right", although the evidence is there the situation is more complex.

The ability for the Right to reasonably assess serious criticism of government as an institution has been eroded, so they can't even keep themselves honest by providing a large democractic check on power. We used to more commonly appreciate that both sides were an acceptable check on each other, and could have an honest dialogue that drained the swamp of spin and exposed the best POLICY decisions for the most people. The extremes were always more polarized, but the middle was never this torn apart, and the balance worked well: have the extremes fuel the debate with ideas, and let the middle battle it out more soberly without as much partisan loyalty.

People can believe whatever they want, but when it starts to affect the lives of billions of people they have to stop believing crap. "Credible" people making "ludricrous" accusations just doesn't stand up to repeated scrutiny when we've seen it repeated ad nauseam. Instead of remembering they spent an entire lifetime being credible, the Right tends to cruelly strip them of credibility and integrity in false attacks - an institutional dismantling of our heroes.

This re-writing of history can't be ignored: it devalues the importance of what we already know and the ideals we cherish, and makes all institutional heritage worthless save for the idea of obedience to it in principle. The era of the "big government" conservative is upon us, an unbelievable perversion of their core value as a check and balance in any society - and yet they haven't noticed.

So many things are now "impossible" that possibilities become negblible even when backed up by facts. Predictability is useless, and current analysis outside of the parameters set by official rhetoric is worthless - the facts can't be accepted despite their objective value. All government has to do is build a fantasy and throw new story elements in, maintaining an intellectual hierarchy of new leaked information for smug debate by "insiders". Some people are simply better storytellers and better read, so they can fit their specific knowledge into a larger official framework even in the most vigorous debates.

So, we have a dilemma here: what's the truth?

I would argue it's not necessarily what the mass-media gets all of us excited about. With all their resources and money they're not useless, but they are horrendously bad at exercising good judgement on a collective level, and unable to accurately reflect what a society needs to know. When one network brings something in-style they bend the other networks to their will for ratings, especially when that issue is supported by a rabid group of mainstream fanatics.

Take the Terry Schiavo case - please.

President Bush interrupted his vacation for the first time in history to sign a bill that would interfere with a Florida State Court ruling, and keep Terry Schiavo alive after she was clinically brain-dead for 15 years. Yet, he won't see Cindy Sheehan about her dead son Casey, and he won't stop Muslim men, women and children from being tortured.

The widespread sanction of this is is the blindness of being Right, and having absolute faith in absolute hypocrisy as absolute truth.

So, who do you trust?

I found The Taguba Report, an official government report on the Iraqi prison system by Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Beyond the photos we've seen (which should be damning enough), this gets into the culpability of the Army as judged internally by a very well-respected officer. It's been cited by several mainstream sources, however only a few got into it deep enough to draw solid conclusions, and among the rest of us screaming "This is worse than TV is telling you!" I cite among others:

Seymour Hersh and Alex Jones.

(I'm not sure how they feel about each other, but I like 'em.)

It was fairly big news, CNN interviewed Sy Hersh and other networks mentioned The Taguba Report, confirming its existence and authenticity and that of General Taguba as a real human being testifying before a Senate Committee as a Senior ranked Military Officer.

Then, they dropped it.

Others who read it identified crazy stuff in the exact same OFFICIAL REPORT that the rest of the media didn't cover or whitewashed, and they reported on it.

Same sources.

Same info.

Deeper investigation.

How is this not "news"?

How is this not "truth"?


I'll admit: there's news and conspiracy theory.


I gotta say, looking at all this news is making me a conspiracy theorist.

The assholes allowing this are clearly capable of anything, and any charge that's not quite as bad as torturing innocent people for years I'll allow to hang around for a bit until disproven...

I've got a couple of shout-outs from Sy and Alex below...




The New Yorker

How the Department of Defense mishandled the disaster at Abu Ghraib.


Issue of 2004-05-17
Posted 2004-05-09

In his devastating report on conditions at Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq, Major General Antonio M. Taguba singled out only three military men for praise. One of them, Master-at-Arms William J. Kimbro, a Navy dog handler, should be commended, Taguba wrote, because he “knew his duties and refused to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI”—military intelligence—“personnel at Abu Ghraib.” Elsewhere in the report it became clear what Kimbro would not do: American soldiers, Taguba said, used “military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.”



SEYMOUR HERSH: Well the report by Taguba, first of all, it’s probably the best report. I’ve been doing this stuff for a long time. It’s probably the most concise, direct report I’ve ever read. This guy is really full of integrity, which is good. And the terrible truth is that, according to his report, since last summer the army’s had a lot of reason to worry about its prison system.




Journalist: 'Amazing' collapse of Army prison system

Monday, May 3, 2004 Posted: 12:16 PM EDT (1616 GMT)

(CNN) -- The U.S. military is denying reports of widespread abuse of Iraqi prisoners, after an article in The New Yorker magazine cited an Army report describing abuses of inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison, near Baghdad.

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, author of The New Yorker piece, discussed his findings Monday with CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk about this internal Army report that you obtained. And you base a lot of your reporting, in fact, on this Gen. [Antonio] Taguba's report. He described it as "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" at this specific prison. That's a quote there. Give us some of the specifics that you talk about in your report.

HERSH: Well, the big thing that the general did is he said the photographs you saw of the Iraqi men being humiliated are one element, but even before those photographs, there was a consistent pattern of very sadistic treatment being done, not by the kids that you saw, mostly done by the interrogators at the prison.

Every prison has an interrogation section with military intelligence officers, CIA people and private contractors. And in that side of the facility, there were beatings, regular beatings, threats, threatened rape, sodomy. I mean, it's just the usual list of torture stuff that I guess we went to Iraq to stop in the prisons there.

O'BRIEN: You describe it as almost routine. You say it's a fact of Army life, that the soldiers felt no need to hide anything. How do you know that it's routine when everything we have heard from military officials at this point is sort of more of a description of a few bad apples?

HERSH: You know, that's a funny description, the bad seed description. What you see is a prison that was out of control, according to the Taguba report.




Links from the Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State Research Companion...


Key excerpts from the Taguba report

Updated: 6:20 p.m. ET May 3, 2004

The following are some of the key excerpts from the report prepared by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba on alleged abuse of prisoners by members of the 800th Military Police Brigade at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad. The report was ordered by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of Joint Task Force-7, the senior U.S. military official in Iraq, following persistent allegations of human rights abuses at the prison.

(B)etween October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated byseveral members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320th Military Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF).

In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

(T)he intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements.

The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib called these detainees “ghost detainees.” On at least one occasion, the 320th MP Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of “ghost detainees” (6-8) for OGAs that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law.



The Guardian

C4 lines up Guantánamo-style torture show

Dominic Timms
Tuesday February 8, 2005

Channel 4 is to broadcast what it is styling a Guantánamo Bay-style reality show that will examine the effects of mild torture on seven male volunteers.

The Guantánamo Guidebook will recreate some of the practices used at the US naval base where hundreds of so-called "enemy combatants" have been held without trial or access to lawyers for nearly three years.

SOURCE -,3604,1408237,00.html


Here is the uncensored version of General Taguba's report:




References .......................... 3

Background ......................... 6

Assessment of DoD Counter-Terrorism
Interrogation and Detention Operations
In Iraq (MG Miller's Assessment).................. 8

IO Comments on MG Miller's Assessment.............. 8

Report on Detention and Corrections
In Iraq (MG Ryder's Report).................. 9

IO Comments on MG Ryder's Report.................. 12

Preliminary Investigative Actions .................. 12

Findings and Recommendations


Random repilogue...

Uncommon intelligence is better...

i mean really - what do you want? do you want to know the truth or share the lie?

the quality of alternative information is excellent - they have to try harder to sell you against CNN etc., and yet people have been trained like dogs to bark in fear at anything that questions what they know.

this is an extreme charge to be sure, and it's not ABC - read the post. but crazier stuff has happened throughout history - which they no longer teach us on purpose just so we'll act the way doubters do: "i ain't heard it so it can't be true!"

this is destroying the concept of "trust" throughout America, as people are getting suspicious of any "honest" intent outside of their bias or the "official" party line. and yet, government officials have been proven dishonest for thousands of years: dismissing any criticism of them is just historically stupid.

howard zinn wrote a book called "the people's history of the united states", and it's sold one-million copies, a staggering number for any book not starring harry potter. this shows how hungry people are for alternatives to the accepted truth, and frankly here's something for ya:


i wouldn't share something this crazy if it wasn't good - why would i put myself on the line and just get flamed? everyone who watches it likes it so far even as entertainment - no complaints...

if i found: "Secret Video - Dubya saves cat from tree in 1986!" then i could have that garbage fly around the web in two seconds, but if it's something this crazy it'd better be well-researched.


respect, gladja liked the site, here's another one that includes an ABC News special on MK Ultra - the CIA's mind control program...

and yes...

this time that is really ABC News.

(Finally) Families Sift Through New 9/11 Documents ("4 more years! 4 more years!")

Families Sift Through New 9/11 Documents

Associated Press Writers
19 minutes ago

NEW YORK - The families of fallen firefighters revisited the heart-rending morning of Sept. 11 with the rest of the nation as the Fire Department opened a trove of finely sketched recollections of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

Relatives pored over more than 12,000 pages of oral histories and hours of recorded radio transmissions in which firefighters described in vivid, intimate detail how they rushed to save fleeing civilians before the twin towers collapsed in choking clouds of dust and debris.

For some families, the documents — released after a three-year court battle with the city — offered hints of their loved ones' last whereabouts, and confirmation that equipment problems contributed to their deaths. The attack killed 343 firefighters.

Sally Regenhard, mother of 28-year-old Christian Regenhard, said a breakdown of communications led to her son's death and that the response to the attack "has been sanitized by the city of New York in an effort to put all this under the rug."

She and her husband, retired police Sgt. Al Regenhard, learned a sliver of information about their son's last minutes during the three-hour session. He had been filling in that day for a firefighter in Engine 279 of Red Hook, Brooklyn, which was told to head toward the south tower; she even learned the name of his commander.

"It's very emotional. It's very difficult," she said. "But it's no harder than knowing every day that my son is gone."

The histories, recorded in the weeks and months after the attack, offer a glimpse of firefighters battling their own fears as they fought to save others.

Trapped in the mall below the trade center after the collapse of the south tower, James Murphy and a group of fellow firefighters started hunting for the exits. Frightened civilians began grabbing onto them, he said.

"We were saying, `Don't worry, we're with the Fire Department. Everybody is going to get out,'" Murphy recalled. But, he said, "We were just as scared as anybody else. We were just victims, too. Basically the only difference between us and the victims is we had flashlights."

Firefighter Kirk Long, whose Engine 1 was sent to the north tower, spoke of climbing upward in the north tower as civilians fled in the opposite direction.

"I was watching every person coming down, looked at their face, just to make them happy that they were getting out and we were going in, and everything was OK," Long said in his oral history.

The radio transmissions added new texture to the historical record of the day, beginning at 8:46 a.m. with an urgent description of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center.

"The World Trade Center tower Number One is on fire!" one firefighter radioed.

As the depth of the crisis became clear, the voices on the radios thickened with panic.

"Send every available ambulance, everything you got to the World Trade Center," a firefighter calls from Engine 1. "Now!"

Another firefighter, Maureen McArdle-Schulman, recalled hearing someone yell before the collapses that something was falling from the towers.

She said she thought it might have been desks coming out.

"Then the first body hit and then we knew what it was," she said. "I was getting sick. I felt like I was intruding on a sacrament. They were choosing to die and I was watching them and shouldn't have been. So me and another guy turned away and looked at a wall and we could still hear them hit."

The records shed some new light onto lingering questions and long-standing complaints about the response. Firefighters described faulty communications equipment and some orders that weren't obeyed.

Some city officials, including former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, have suggested that firefighters ignored the mayday call in acts of personal heroism. But a group of activist families has sought to lay blame on the city for providing firefighters with radios that didn't work.

Firefighter Paul Bessler recalled a colleague storming up the north tower's stairs as if he was "on a mission."

"Just at that point, my radio came clear as day, 'Imminent collapse. This was a terrorist attack. Evacuate.'"

But Thomas Piambino said he heard "absolutely nothing" ordering him out. He and others nearby left the tower before it fell, but he said he didn't know why.

"It was just the culmination of intuition or what," he said. "I just decided it was time to go."

The transcripts reinforced the perception that some firefighters dropped protocol and simply acted according to their best instincts.

Firefighter Patrick Martin of Engine 229 said that after the south tower had collapsed and before the north tower came down, his lieutenant ordered him to a boat taking people to hospitals across the Hudson River.

"I told him I wasn't leaving," Martin said. "We were still missing one guy."

The New York Times and families of Sept. 11 victims sued the city in 2002 to release the records, which were collected by fire officials in the days after the attack.

The city withheld them, but in March, the state's highest court ordered their release, allowing the city to leave out potentially painful and embarrassing parts. Portions of 911 calls have yet to be released.

The Fire Department, in a statement, said it hoped the release of the records would not cause firefighters and their families additional pain.

"The department believes that the materials being released today ... will serve to further confirm the bravery and courage of our members who responded to the World Trade Center," the statement said.

Associated Press Writers Michael Weissenstein, Frank Eltman, Tom Hays, Verena Dobnik, Amy Westfeldt and Jennifer Bogar contributed to this report.


Friday, August 12, 2005

Cindy Sheehan: The White Rosa Parks Speaks... Brilliantly. (Betcha cry.)

Video: Cindy Sheehan - Freedom and Faith

How Do You Ask A Soldier To Be The Last Person To Die For A LIE have created this brief "Cindy" video with footage from Crawford and Cindy's appearances with us around the country at Freedom AND Faith events. It was put together by Margie Becker.

Please share it with your friends and contacts. Cindy's courageous Crawford stand is galvanizing opposition to the war and awakening America to the senseless tragedy that is Iraq.

Cindy is a gift to us.

This short video is our gift to you, and to Cindy.


Bush Motorcade Passes War Protesters

Associated Press Writer
37 minutes ago

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush and his motorcade passed the growing camp of war protesters outside his ranch Friday without incident.

As Bush passed on his way to and from a political fundraiser, law enforcement blocked two intersecting roads where the demonstrators have camped out all week. Officers required the group to stand behind yellow tape, but no one was asked to leave.

The motorcade didn't stop.

Cindy Sheehan, the California mother who started the vigil along the road leading to Bush's ranch, held a sign that read: "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?"

It was unclear whether Bush, riding in a black Suburban with tinted windows, saw the demonstrators.

He had said Thursday that he sympathized with Sheehan but believed it would be a mistake to pull U.S. troops out of

Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq last year, says she wants to meet with him again — they spoke in June 2004 — in light of information since then discrediting the war rationale that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

On Friday, Bush arrived before noon at a neighbor's ranch for a barbecue that was expected to raise at least $2 million for the Republican National Committee.

About 230 people were attending the fundraiser at Stan and Kathy Hickey's Broken Spoke Ranch, a 478-acre spread next to Bush's ranch. All have contributed at least $25,000 to the RNC, and many are "rangers," an honorary campaign title bestowed on those who raised $200,000 or more for Bush, or "pioneers," those who have raised $100,000 or more.

Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., set up camp last weekend a few miles from Bush's ranch, and the group with her has now grown to more than 100.



BONUS: This is just embarrassing...


Here's your logic: Ms. Sheehan is just as slimey as she needs to be to make your slanderous allegations work, is that it?

The "facts" you get are from people who share YOUR bias, alright? So look at them the same way you look at Liberal bias: THINK about it!

Ms. Sheehan's original article is quoted above, she clearly didn't like meeting President Bush, BUT she was polite enough about it to have said sentences Matt Smudge could take out of context - and did.

Ms. Sheehan formed Gold-Star Mothers for Peace well-before she got to Crawford, so this isn't a publicity gimmick: she's felt like this for a while, pretty much since her son died and she looked into the litany of lies that lead to war.

Your leaders lie so much that you assume everyone else is lying, what kind of paranoid insanity is that? You can't take anything straight? You can't believe anyone against your opinion has a point?

This is a grieving mother challenging a President you know lies - whether you justify them in the name of "Manifest Destiny" or not, and if you lose an argument when you lie by saying "she really liked him their first meeting!", then you'll just switch to "she's a publicity-hound tool of the Left"?

Can't you just see how a mother who lost her son in a war could be against that war?

Your VOLUNTEER army volunteered her son to his death for a lie, and volunteers most 18 year olds after sticking them with poverty, denying them education any other way, and forcing them to die for a lifestyle most of them will never afford if they return.

You should have wars when you have to, not when you want to, as the biggest idiot war-mongers are refusing to sign up to fight for the "Iraqi people"... as if you really, really cared about them sanctioning the torture going on...

And if you can't see Cindy Sheehan as a true Patriot with a different point of view, that's just embarrassing.

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


"Now, you can either make up your own conspiracy theories or you can watch the ones backed up by years of research, footage and documents."

I gotchoo Daft...

It shocks me that people won't believe in the possibility of a conspiracy when people have been thinking about the possibility of a conspiracy for 40 years...

Not to mention: why would we be defending it if it was crap? We're already out there in suggesting it's worth seeing, and if it was crap it'd be a waste of time to even mention with no popular support. Most of the anti-Michael Moore films were crap, they got no mainstream traction and no validation by the press and a party that would have loved to vilify him. Still, that garbage was given credibility by thousands of people wih an agenda looking to bash him who cited it as "great" for partisan political reasons, this little film will have to stand on its own.

Besides, crazier stuff has happened than a guy with CIA connections being suggested as a suspect for a hit only the CIA could carry off...

This isn't a moral issue, the Bush's can be judged on their individual actions - though for the record, I haven't seen Bush Jr. improve the world on any metric so far without losing big on another one: got Saddam = destroyed Iraq, missed Osama = destroyed Afghanistan...


Stop and think about it: someone knows who killed JFK.

And who could've pulled it off?

Calling off the military from providing an escort? Calling off JFK's Secret Service from jogging beside the car? (Check the Zapruder film - where they at?) Ensuring the Warren Commission covered it up?

Cubans? Mafia?

Nah. They would've been perfect targets for an investigation.


Better leave them alone.

Then you've got to ask yourself: why did J. Edgar Hoover write a memo with Bush Sr.'s name on it to the CIA director in 1963? Bush Sr. said he'd never done anything with the CIA until 1976. Then in 1976 he became head of the CIA, just as the former head who was in the process of implicating Bush Sr. and Co. in actual testimony was fired. Then he quickly ended the CIA's cooperation, and killed any probe into JFK's murder.

(BTW, there's a lot more of this stuff, believe you me, there's a lot more than this paragraph in the film.)

Now, you can either make up your own conspiracy theories or you can watch the ones backed up by years of research, footage and documents. If you're a reaaally good "conspiracy theorist", then go ahead: make up your own. For everyone else looking for answers, this is as good a source as any, and from what I've seen and heard: better than most.

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -



JFK II: The Bush Connection

A thorough, documented, criminal indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt as a supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy.

This is the best documentary about the murder of JFK that I've ever seen. This is above and beyond anything you've ever seen on the subject. The evidence is here and it is conclusive.

View Video Here




BONUS: "Shirley Pentaveret? Gee willikers!"

"Faith'n'begorrah sirrah'n'lassie!"


"Speak thee not ill of the Illuminati! For it is said they have one-eye, one dreaded wink, and one... giant... monocle!!! 'Tis said when a man looks into the evil eye he sees the Cataracts of the Crippled, and the Bloodshot Red of the Hookah from Hell!"

"Come hither! These woods have ears, and mein President is on Fox News chasing Armadillos for nary TWO fortnights! Ride!!!"



How come you people can't debate the facts about stuff that makes you squirm?

Let's start simple: Can you disprove anything I wrote without saying:

"That's not possible! It was that faggot Sponge-Bob Squarepants! Burn 'im! He's a gay-witch! And Cindy Sheehan! Burn 'er! She's a grieiving mother witch?"

What is it about facts you can't debate that makes you think you can win if you ignore them? Is that really proving what you believe is "right"?

Look, you can still be a fan of both Bush's and the whole neo-con thing after you learn bad stuff, just like people can still be Michael Jackson and R. Kelly fans - they haven't been convicted either. I don't know though, based on the evidence so far I'm not sure if I'd let any of them babysit my kid or my country...


BONUS: What are facts?

the internet is a wonderful thing, full of vibrant disparate and important information. sometimes, people put that information together in an entertaining way to make a story that helps us understand the world...

like... a... movie.

but alright, what is your bare minimum of proof?

i'll just track down a few:

newspaper articles - will you say they're biased?

documents - will you say they're faked?

pictures - photoshop'd?

video - CGI'd?

what Matt Drudge just did to Cindy Sheehan's "a gift" quote was reprehensible character assasination: is that who you trust? even after he's proven wrong and a hypocrite again and again? like O'Reilly? Limbaugh? Coulter?

so, people who are wrong every week are the standard: how the heck are you going to recognize the truth? they're entertaining no doubt, Coulter i find especially wicked fun, but you can't take her seriously: she thought Canada went to war in Vietnam with the U.S., and even argued the point to a standstill with a Canadian news guy. (for the record, they didn't.)

when they shoot from the hip it doesn't involve bullets from the head, and since you won't double-check you never see them get it wrong. at least we check sources we disagree with, it keeps us honest and keeps our eye on the ball (named Osama) and chain (named Economy).

frankly i was hoping someone who disagreed would have facts that clarified the story for me. i don't have to be right on this one, this is just a matter of history, not the awful foreign policy (Bush Doctrine) that allows the military to invent reasons for going to war forever.

but unbelievably, you've got nothing. hard-core Bush Dynasty fans can't tell me what the heck Poppy was up to in the 50's and 60's and Dubya was up to in the 80's. why won't they tell you?

tell you what: short of a videotaped Bush Sr. confession begging forgiveness (which you would promptly grant if the Party asked), let me know what it'll take and i'll take a minute to dig it up.



BONUS: No takers?

I mean really, what's with the whole ostrich approach?

I think secretly a whole bunch of you know that the Bush's have skeletons in their closet, and for better or worse, you're down to ride. Some of you may admire them for getting away with it, but many will simply refuse to look for fear of looking foolish at your faith in the men who asked you for it. It would be a tragedy to agree to that trust and have it abused, so rather than face criticism honestly you bury your heads in the sand while screaming "It's a lie!"

Dubya's Army of Dedicated Doubters: "Ready, aim, fire!!!"

"That's dumb!"

"That's silly!"

"Ohmigod, look at her butt!"

As seen above this post, you'll unlease The Dogs of Shallow Sarcasm to debate, smirking about the impossibility of something until it becomes a mantra, and as soon as it becomes a pile-on it's legitimized: "We all feel this way! We're all Right! Pile-on!"

So, you don't have to deal with things that might prove you wrong, a horrible check and balance on making sure you're "small R" right.

And who's to say anybody can't be right?

I'm a "What's he saying?" guy in a "Who's saying it?" world, and I think the potential quality of arguments on the Left is becoming unrecognizable to the Right - and vice versa. Historically, intelligent thoughts have come from across the spectrum, and now you think the Right has a monopoly? That humans can't be critical of anything outside of someone else's parameters? That independently researched criticism is worthless? That arguments can't be aimed at improving society?

I'm pro-gun and anti-war, and if you think: "How's that possible?" then you've slipped massively in your ability to think of people outside of labels. This happens on both sides, and I've argued with the Left as well. As others will note, there's a massive difference between citizens keeping guns in their home for protection, and citizens being consistently lied to by governments to get our permission to send our sons and daughters off to kill and be killed themselves. Also, any government that screws our kids ("veterans" - yeah right!) when they get back by cutting benefits and leaving many violent, depressed, homeless or addicted to drugs, while at the same appropriating billions of tax dollars for corporate friends to develop experimental weaponry... is a government that having a few guns around to protect against ain't a bad idea. (To borrow one from The Founding Fathers, if you don't mind.)

(BTW, This is happening in Iraq: Where did the "87 billion!" increases go if our kids are STILL without body armor? Why are benefits cut TODAY when they get back? Who would criticize this stuff when it could be so easily disproven if it were untrue? I mean ALL of it?)

I saw the Right, I saw the Left, and I saw what I wanted to think. I'm still grounded by my own reasoning, and prefer this to having faith in the purity of an ideology's ability to form perfect policy as sold to me by politicians: on it's face that's madness...

A "Man of Faith" can always repeat his infallibility and others who think the same will applaud, but if you look at any human being you'll see they're fallible - including The President. Your approach makes you terrible for a democracy: how are you supposed to look at anything critically? If the whole Left is bad, is the whole Right good? What happened to "corrupt politicians" as a RULE not an exception? What happened to keeping an eye on things? What happened to looking at the effects of POLICY?

Now, I know there's a lot of debate and discussion and message boards and such, but it's within a very narrow spectrum of debate: increase troops, decrease troops, stay for 2 years, stay for 12 years... and most of it is crap. The military makes decisions completely independently of public opinion unless it is forced to listen, and with carefully controlled info and changing conditions we're just burning straw-men for the fun of it. The intellectual hierarchy is often built on someone finding nuggets of new information that generally support policy, adding only nuances to the agreed upon paradigm.

There's no context without an assessment of all the facts - including the ones the mainstream media is afraid to report that are dug up by heroic journalists - with evidence, and without an examination of the worthiness of the debate itself.

With 62% disapproving of the War in Iraq despite a media-blackout on serious coverage and years of cheerleading, it appears people have checked for themselves or checked with their friends - and it's about bloody time. The whole erosion of "trust" in America is a byproduct of the current Right Wing Strategy filtered down through the ranks, where anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong, intellectually inferior and easily branded a party to the most extreme Left values in history. This is simply not true, it never has been, and just calling everyone you can't argue with "a crazy commie" won't make you any smarter either.

So put down the Kool-Aid and deal with the facts: Watch the video, tell me how it's a complete farce, and I'll be done believing it's possible. I promise. I will never mention it again, and I'll trash its worth as a critique of the Bush Family if it's mentioned in front of me.

I can change my mind without compromising my loyalty to my own ideals: can you?

Or are your marching orders to dismiss any attempts at intellectual evolution as a dreaded: "flip-flop?"

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


P.S. Red Dragon, I quickly Googled exactly what you wrote:

"J Edgar Hoover stalled all investigations into JFK's death"

And came up with nothing in the first few results despite all the JFK stuff available. Plus Hoover was closer to JFK than the CIA was so that makes less sense... as far as I know

Now, I'm not saying it's not true, but where did you hear that?


Got a good movie I can watch? (Laughing)


Alex Jonesin' for Truth in the 21st Century... and why not?

Oh c'mon, that's it?

I don't even need the love, and no offence, but I'm just shocked by how strongly you feel about something you probably know so little about on a message board where we're supposed to be among the most open-minded and open to dialectic.

I still suggest watching it, we can't afford to just "keep" our precious theories as we've calcified them, that's exactly what happened to many who voted for Dubya in 2004:

"Oh, I just don't believe Saddam didn't blow up the towers! We're at war with Iraq, aren't we? And we found all those WMD's!"

So, we Message Board Elite are no better than anyone else on any side of the polical spectrum playing into this stupid game of defiant ignorance, like it's better to have your own opinion than make it a better one. Too many trust airbrushed talking heads mindlessly reading soundbites off the teleprompter over more detailed pleas to listen to the truth, and... here we are: in a world where we can't agree on the "facts" themselves let alone how to use them to discuss policy.

Besides, he's at least half-right on sight...

Seriously, the way we "think" about Alex Jones doesn't reflect what he actually does, and ANY human adult will get at least half this movie without investigating anything else. I was pretty skeptical before I knew who he was, though in hindsight I'm not sure exactly why I was thinking that way since I dind't know anything about him. If you look further you'll simply find a lot's true and there's a lot more to investigate about the rest, which is at least half a clue...

He and his team scan MAINSTREAM news sources from across the globe, with a lot from the U.S., and crucial finds makes his stuff compelling. They also get curious footage from stories before they settle into mass-media history as unanswered questions, showing video clips like Dan Rather saying live on CBS News the WTC 7 collapse reminded him of "well placed dynamite". At least we get to know what should've been stories if the corporate media had the political will and permission, thus ensuring we're all much more informed than we know we're not now.

The footage he shoots of police and military actions is crazy, including actions at the RNC convention in New York last year where they locked 2000 protestors in a condemned building with asbestos. In fact some of the bad stuff they admit they're doing, but often just to him: because he's the only one that asks.

Asking the right questions reveals a lot of research was done, including his Project Censored 2004 award for his analysis of Patriot Act II. In fact, I'm glad he read it and had his analysis validated by others, because I sure as hell wasn't going to. The fact that this really IS happening in America is worrisome, and he's one of the few media sources telling us to be worried.

Finally, the experts (yes - real experts!), including Generals, CIA agents, scientists, journalists and many others make his forums worth checking. They are very well respected in their fields, they simply can't discuss certain subjects as openly anywhere else - or discuss them at all if they aren't "mainstream news" already. He's interviewed witness the media clamoured over right after 9/11 who were ignored when the official story was settled on, and they have supported testimonies that could each make them star-witnesses of even the laziest lawyers.

To truly understand him from a new perspective, you need a translation of what he means and not what you think he means. To wit: if you heard a 4-Star General saying something you didn't understand you wouldn't assume he was an idiot, he just knows more than you about what he's talking about and has a different world view while still saying a lot that makes sense.

Mr. Jones deserves the same courtesy, if not more...

"New World Order": rich + evil = people

"Globalists": rich + evil = people

"Police State": rich + evil = dream

And despite what you've heard, he's not anti-Semitic unless:

"Specific Semite": rich + evil = person

And since we know "rich + evil = people" have always existed throughout history, I'm glad different people point out in different ways how we screwed up and left them in charge.

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


P.S. Here's an example of documentation from the Martial Law website...



0:05:25 Master Blaster: A New Noisemaker - MSNBC (From Newsweek July 12, 2004 issue)
0:09:32 NYC police arrest two in bomb plot - The Washington Times/UPI, August 28, 2004
0:09:33 Terror Threat Info May Be Dated - CBS News/AP, August 3, 2004
0:10:07 Blimp to provide convention coverage for police - CNN August 26, 2004
0:10:08 Fuji Blimp Plays Role in GOP Convention Security - 1010 WINS, August 30, 2004
0:10:11 Hi-tech blimp is new spy in the sky - The Times, September 13, 2003
0:10:31 Security blimp tested in Washington skies - CNN, September 29, 2004
0:10:33 COPS HAVE EYES ON X-RAY VISION -, June 4, 1999
0:11:15 Fuji Police Bicycles -
0:11:23 Eye in the Sky—and Everywhere Else: Do Biometric Technologies Violate Our Rights? - The Cato Institute, January 24, 2002
0:12:24 Helmet cams will eye GOP confab - NY, August 26, 2004

Please report any corrections or broken links


Yo man, you alright?

I mean, do you believe anything exists?

Can you sit on a chair without looking at it the whole time?


Do you simply hold different information to different standards?

Do you fail to check primary sources when you don't want to?

Do you honestly not care a lick to investigate most of the stuff you trust to work every day?

That's what I'm guessing!

It seems to me like you're speaking fast and throwing double-speak at us amigo, and most of your random questions are answered in the film itself. In fact, I talked about them because they were in the film, so you can't possibly expect me to accept your sight-unseen you charges of "lack of context", etc. - I clearly watched it and thought differently.

If you want to verify what I said watch the film, I just can't prove it to you here and you seem to have already made up your mind. If you watch it you'll see I'm right, and there is as much evidence as any other documentary on the planet.

Yet, this one you'll attempt to banish from our minds.


What's your story?

What are you attempting to accomplish by suppressing this so dismissively?

By the way: do you really think I'm going to trust "your knowledge" of "engineers" you may or may not have spoken to? Or "your knowledge" of different information or "your knowledge" of Alex Jones as being an automatic trump card? How dumb is that?

Tell you what: go make your own thoroughly investigated documentary, back it up with experts, and interview on camera dozens of people from across the Right and Left spectrum who look and sound sincere without profiting from their actions. [Note: You can insert your own "Conspiracy! = How do you know they're not making money! It's all staged!" nyah-nyah-nyah here, with no evidence it's just stupid knee-jerk criticism and I don't care.]

You have not exposed any smoking gun of Mr. Jones, and all you do is wager poor arguments slanderously delivered, for example:

1) I strongly doubt the economist who thought the WTC may have been a controlled demolition was offering a professional opinion - this has never happened on his show. In conversations we formulate many opinions on the fly, and defend strongly the ones we are confident in. Even you have an opinion that they weren't demolished: are YOU an engineer? Where's YOUR science? Can your engineer-Daddy beat up my engineer-Daddy? Do you have to be a professional to have a theory?

Do any of US have a right to opinions about things we don't know about?

Aw heck, alright, I'll let YOU have your opinion of Mr. Jones! :-D

2) When it comes to "jews knowing information" in government or intelligence contexts, you are using a fake and cheap charge of anti-Semitism to slander Mr. Jones. I don't believe he would even accidentally phrase things that way, he's never sounded racist.

But to explain, just like when discussing "America" we make a disctinction between the American people and American government, and the same can be done with the Israeli government and the Jewish people. With the publicly acknowledged close government ties between America and Israel it is quite likely they share intelligence information, and reports of this surface all the time as referenced by Mr. Jones.

You're just playing to play man, not playing to win, and I don't know who put you up to it but cut it out. If you want to make the world a better place, open your mind to those with a parallel agenda for truth and see if you can make peace with it...

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


8/11: it's going to be an interesting 30 days.

Federalized State Guard, National Guard and Police Train to Dominate American Citizens, Take Over Local Governments

Troops Equate Civil Disturbances with Terrorism, Citizens are called "rebels"

Alex Jones | August 11, 2005

Now fighting terror means tackling people. They've taken the State Guards and converted them into Stasi goon squads that engage in law-enforcement activities across the country.
Last year, we reported on the Alabama Defense Force which has been setting up random checkpoints and searching women and children in Alabama. The same system has been set up in Texas. We have their internal field manuals. It's all about gun confiscation, mass arrests and total control.

Former Congressman Bob Barr has been all over national television warning the American people about current military restructuring that will put military forces on street corners. He asks, "Do we want, as a free people, with the notion of privacy enshrined in the Constitution and based on the very clear limits and defined role of government, to be in a society where not just the police, but the military are on the street corners gathering intelligence on citizens, sharing that data, manipulating that data?"

Meanwhile, The Washington Post is telling us how safe we will be because NORTHCOM, our new military overlords, are preparing to give us martial law to protect us from that evil concept formerly known as freedom, now known as al-Qaeda.

Watch this disgusting clip out of Roanoke, Virginia. Notice how they talk about fighting terrorism after 9/11.

I guess fighting terrorism consists of dealing with rioters. Why does the government think we're going to be rioting? Why have they been quietly building giant force structures for the last eight years?

The news piece points out police aiming their paint ball guns at the "rebels" and sniping them. I've been to ten of these drills in the last eight years.
In Belton, Texas, in 2000, I had regular Army march up to me with the police and tell us to turn our video cameras off. In 1999, we were in Oakland, California covering Operation Urban Warrior. Thousands of active-duty Marines trained openly with foreign troops to interrogate American citizens and confiscate our firearms.

In Swansboro, North Carolina, the Marines actually engaged in live, law-enforcement activities, assisting at checkpoints. In Hebron, Maryland, they practiced taking over City Hall and told our cameraman to turn his camera off.
All of this is exhaustively detailed in my films, Police State 2000, Police State II: The Takeover and 9/11: The Road to Tyranny.

This is deadly serious. This is classical tyranny. They are turning America into an armed camp and treating us like slaves while leaving the borders wide open.

Alex Jones is an award-winning documentary filmmaker and political researcher. His news websites, and, are at the forefront of the exploding alternative media. Jones is recognized by many as the father of the 9/11 truth movement, being the first to question the government’s official story. His newest film is Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State. It details the latest 9/11 revelations. Jones lives in Austin, Texas.


Listen to Alex Jones Live from 11AM-2PM and from 9PM-Midnight Central Mon-Fri

Rapilogue: Where are we going?

"You say you're sorry
For tellin' stories
That you know I believe are true.
You say ya got some
Other kinda lover
And yes, I believe you do.
You say my kisses are not like his,
But this time I'm not gonna tell you why that is.
I'm just gonna let you pass,
Yes, and I'll go last.
Then time will tell who fell
And who's been left behind,
When you go your way and I go mine...."

- Bob Dylan, "Most Likely You Go Your Way and I'll Go Mine"

Chiggidy-check yo'self...

Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (2005)

Evil has spread across the land. Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State exposes the high-tech control grid that is being set up across America.

Out of the ashes of the September 11th tragedy, a dark empire of war and tyranny has risen. The Constitution has been shredded and America is now a Police State. This film exposes not just who was behind the 9-11 attacks, but the roots and history of its orchestrators.

Downloaded: 4,353 times


MARTIAL LAW 911: RISE OF THE POLICE STATE Information Resource Companion Web Site.


8/11: "There's no rebuilding, no weapons, nothing," said retired Iraqi Lt. Gen. Abdul Aziz al-Yaseri, who worked in the Defense Ministry.

Audit: Fraud drained $1 billion from Iraq's defense efforts

By Hannah Allam,
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Thu Aug 11, 6:04 PM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi investigators have uncovered widespread fraud and waste in more than $1 billion worth of weapons deals arranged by middlemen who reneged or took huge kickbacks on contracts to arm Iraq's fledgling military, according to a confidential report and interviews with U.S. and Iraqi officials.

The Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit, in a report reviewed by Knight Ridder, describes transactions suggesting that senior U.S.-appointed Iraqi officials in the Defense Ministry used three intermediary companies to hide the kickbacks they received from contracts involving unnecessary, overpriced or outdated equipment.

Knight Ridder reported last month that $300 million in defense funds had been lost. But the report indicates that the audit board uncovered a much larger scandal, with losses likely to exceed $500 million, that's roiling the ministry as it struggles to build up its armed forces.

The episode deprives Iraq's military of essential gear that could help prepare the way for U.S. forces to withdraw. It also raises questions about the new government's ability to provide an effective defense against an entrenched insurgency and win broad acceptance among Iraqis.

The audit board's investigators looked at 89 contracts of the past year and discovered a pattern of deception and sloppiness that squandered more than half the Defense Ministry's annual budget aimed at standing up a self-sufficient force, according to a copy of the 33-page report.

Its revelations offer the most comprehensive look to date at corruption that allegedly thrived for eight months or longer even with about 20 American civilian advisers working alongside Iraqi defense chiefs, including those now under investigation. The report does not suggest that U.S. advisers were involved in any corruption.

"If one dinar is misspent, I ache for it, so just imagine how it feels for such huge sums," Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said in an interview Wednesday. "We need it to build the country and, even if we reach the level to where we don't need it, we aren't about to give our money over to corruption."

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which oversees civilian advisers to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, didn't consent to on-the-record interviews about the investigation. In response to a request for comment, it issued a statement that said embassy officials were aware of the allegations and that, even before they became public, "we were advising the Iraqis about our concerns relating to MoD decisions on procurement and the possibility of corruption."

Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi confirmed most of audit board report's findings in an interview last Sunday, saying that at least $500 million in Iraqi money essentially has disappeared. He's removed nine senior officials so far - he fired the ministry's procurement chief and placed his own deputy minister, Bruska Shaways, on leave - and said he was working through a list of other employees who faced dismissal and possible criminal charges.

"This is not only the Defense Ministry's problem. It affects the image of the new Iraq," al-Dulaimi said. "If we really spent that money in the right way, maybe it would have given us more capabilities to face terrorists."

The Board of Supreme Audit, led by former Human Rights Minister Abdel Baset al-Turki, examined defense contracts that had been signed starting with the transfer of sovereignty June 28, 2004, through Feb. 28, 2005. The investigation's results, supported by bank statements, receipts and internal Defense Ministry memos, were delivered to al-Jaafari's office May 16.

Among the findings:

-Multimillion-dollar contracts were awarded to favored weapons suppliers without a bidding process and without the required approval from the prime minister's office. Investigators wrote that the chief procurer went "beyond his authority" in purchasing equipment.

-Senior Iraqi officials kept little or no record of major purchases, sometimes noting lucrative deals in "undated and unnumbered" memos. Nearly all purchases contained a clause - unusual in international contracting of this magnitude - that required the contract's full value to be paid up front in cash.

-Instead of buying directly from a foreign company or government, Iraqi arms procurers hired third-party companies to negotiate the contracts. When Iraqi leaders later complained about unfulfilled contracts, they discovered they had no recourse to demand a refund because the payments were made to Iraqi middlemen who vanished after receiving the millions. "The undertakings make no obligation ... toward the Iraqi Ministry of Defense," according to the report.

-The sole beneficiary on 43 of the 89 contracts was a former currency-exchange operator, Nair Mohamed al-Jumaili, whose name doesn't even appear on the contracts. At least $759 million in Iraqi money was deposited into his personal account at a bank in Baghdad, according to the report. Internal records incorrectly "indicated that the Ministry of Defense signed contracts with Poland, Arab countries, the United States and Europe, but we discovered that all contracts were signed and executed with Iraqi suppliers," the report said.

The contracts under scrutiny total $1.27 billion, nearly equal to the estimated $1.3 billion allocated for the Defense Ministry's budget this year. The money came solely from Iraqi coffers, not from the training budget of the U.S. military or from NATO and foreign donations to Iraq's military.

"There's no rebuilding, no weapons, nothing," said retired Iraqi Lt. Gen. Abdul Aziz al-Yaseri, who worked in the Defense Ministry at the height of the alleged corruption. "There are no real contracts, even. They just signed papers and took the money."

Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees the U.S. military's training of Iraqi troops, conducts weekly briefings with the defense minister. Other Iraqi defense officials seldom are spotted without American civilian advisers nearby. The close relationship has raised questions as to how $500 million or more could vanish without U.S. intervention to stop the suspicious contracts that flowed for at least eight months.

"Ask them. I have the same question," al-Dulaimi said. "I blame those who posted them (the officials under investigation). And, by the way, the CPA posted them."

He was referring to the Coalition Provisional Authority, the occupation-era administration that American Ambassador L. Paul Bremer oversaw. Al-Dulaimi, other Iraqi politicians and some U.S. military officials blamed the CPA for forcing the Defense Ministry to hire previously unknown Iraqi officials, especially former exiles, without consulting Iraqi leaders.

Petraeus' spokesmen and U.S. Embassy officials said they raised concerns about corruption rumors but were constrained from doing more to prevent the alleged wrongdoing because a sovereign Iraqi government was in place. However, Iraqi politicians, eager to deflect blame ahead of the coming election season, said Americans introduced a culture that allowed room for corruption and that the Americans could have done more to protect the Iraqi public's money.

"Before me, there was another prime minister. His name was Bremer," Ayad Allawi, who served as interim premier when the corruption investigation began sometime last year, told Knight Ridder. "He ran this country, he had this ministry and a lot of the corruption started then. ... There was no auditing. Airplanes were flying in and the money was handed out in suitcases."

Former Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan has told U.S. and Iraqi officials that Bremer personally requested that Ziad Cattan - the alleged ringleader of the corruption and the ministry's former procurement chief - stay in his job after sovereignty was transferred last summer.

Bremer said this week, through his former CPA spokesman Dan Senor, that he didn't know Cattan. "At least to his knowledge, he'd never met him," Senor said.

Cattan, a dual Polish-Iraqi national, was fired in May and a warrant was issued for his arrest in connection with "the abuse of an employer's funds." He fled Baghdad and hasn't returned to answer the charges.

Col. John Martin, Petraeus' deputy for political-military affairs, said the general as well as high-ranking American and British defense advisers warned Allawi's defense chiefs of "their concerns about the lack of transparency in MoD procurement, the uncoordinated manner in which MoD procurement was proceeding and the possibility for - and rumors of - corruption."

"They also repeatedly warned the MOD that Dr. Ziad Cattan, in addition to procuring items Iraq did need, was also reportedly purchasing items the country did not need and could not afford to purchase, operate or sustain," Martin said. "At the end of the day, however, this was Iraqi money being spent by Iraqi officials of a sovereign country's ministry."

Even as hints of a corruption scandal emerged last spring, Cattan told others in the ministry that U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld personally had assured his job and no Iraqi had the power to remove him, al Dulaimi said. Instead of fleeing the investigation closing in on him, Cattan lobbied for even more authority. He wanted to become defense minister, a seat reserved for a Sunni Arab by al Jaafari's Shiite-dominated government, which was elected last January.

Cattan, a Sunni, contacted the Iraqi National Dialogue Committee, the main Sunni faction negotiating with al-Jaafari on Cabinet appointments, and offered members $10 million cash to nominate him as their candidate for the post, said Mohammed al-Daini and two other committee members who heard Cattan's proposal. The group refused, and al-Jaafari handed the post to al-Dulaimi, a British-educated sociologist who isn't implicated in the scandal.

In several e-mail messages last month, Cattan gave Knight Ridder photos and documents purporting to show his close working relationship with U.S. officials and his repeated requests for their help in streamlining the contracting process. He denied wrongdoing, but acknowledged that some Western officials who are accustomed to peacetime standards might take exception to the aggressive weapons procurement he conducted to quickly arm an Iraqi force against the insurgency.

"We support this when conditions are quiet and normal, but we cannot disregard or overlook the bloody actuality and stick to the ... procedures imposed on us," Cattan wrote to his superiors in a memo dated May 29, around the time of his dismissal. "We cannot stay handcuffed."

When the extent of the alleged corruption leaked to the U.S. Embassy, senior diplomats were "hopping mad," said an official with the U.S.-led Iraq Reconstruction Management Office who has personal knowledge of the Defense Ministry's transactions. He spoke on condition of anonymity Wednesday because he could face dismissal for discussing the matter without authorization.

"The entire embassy was upside down over this," he said. "I swear to God the advisers didn't know everything going on over there. Where did they get their information? From the Iraqis. I can give you one budget that says this country is flourishing and another that tells you this country is going to s---. The Iraqis told us only what they wanted us to hear."

While many of the contracts did result in useful, if overpriced, equipment for Iraq's 80,000 new troops, contracts involving shoddily refurbished helicopters from Poland, crates of loose ammunition from Pakistan and a fleet of leak-prone armored personnel carriers were among purchases that now are deemed unnecessary or unusable.

With the money paid in advance and no mechanism for a refund, al-Dulaimi said, the Defense Ministry is negotiating with weapons dealers to substitute the equipment for more useful items such as guns, radio communications and other vital supplies.

"It's chaos," al-Dulaimi said, visibly exasperated. "It's a result of all the chaos brought to Iraq."



Thursday, August 11, 2005

8/11: "Tell Me You're Not Tradin' Commie Convo Call and Reponse Too... Are You?"


> yo guys, sorry i've been out, bin bizzy like
bin laden, will catch up
> latorz...


"bin bizzy like bin laden" What was that? You
want to go to Guantanamo Bay? Okay...


Be Sure To Wear Red

Hey, what's a little Triumph Of The Will march among friends? Christopher Hayes contributing editor, In These Times, says:

Yesterday we learned that the Department of Defense is planning a massive "America Supports You Freedom Walk" for the fourth anniversary of 9/11.
Bracket for a moment the heinous company in which this this places the Bush administration (Cuba, Iran, and China, just to name a few of the regimes that regularly utilize state-sponsored marches and rallies as propaganda tools), and bracket for a moment the fact that this march for "freedom," which will take place on public streets, apparently requires participants to register with the DoD. There's one aspect of this whole mess I'm surprised hasn't received more attention. Check out this paragraph from the Pentagon's press release:

"The walk was made possible with the help of several local in-kind supporters, including Stars and Stripes newspaper, Pentagon Federal Credit Union, Subway, Washington Post, Lockheed Martin, WTOP, ABC/WJLA-TV Channel 7 and News Channel 8, and the Washington Convention & Tourism Corporation, according to the Freedom Walk Web site."

I count four different media outlets in that list. Funny, I thought it was the role of the press to challenge not collude with the government when it attempts to disseminate propaganda. And propaganda this is, let's be very clear.
One supposes that the suits at the Washington Post Company who OK'ed the partnership with the DoD figured the sentiment of "supporting the troops" is so anodyne as to be wholly uncontroversial, akin to news anchors wearing flag pins on their lapels. If the rally were sponsored by some independent group of citizens, that'd be one thing (though still strange), but it is being organized by the United States military, the same entity currently administering and promoting an increasingly unpopular war, one that remains the single biggest news story in the nation and the subject of much public debate.
This is a not a "support the troops" rally but rather, a "support the war" rally. Media outlets simply have no business granting their imprimatur to such a crudely political stunt.


8/11: GOP-Diddy Redux: "Man, when I blew up, I blew up real good!"

McCain Says Rove Blew Up ‘Old Man of the Mountain’


The New Hampshire Gazette - The Nations Oldest Newspaper

Vol 248, No 15,
April 23, 2004

Click here to view NH Gazette Exclusive Video.

Alleged Motive: Revenge for Bush’s 2000 NH Primary Loss to McCain

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) charges Karl Rove with blowing up New Hampshire’s ‘Old Man of the Mountain,’ in exclusive video footage obtained by The New Hampshire Gazette.

Rove, arguably the man most responsible for George W. Bush’s occupancy of the Oval Office, dynamited the distinctive and much-revered rock formation one year ago this May 2nd “in a fit of anger,” McCain says on the tape.

Asked if Rove’s motive was “to spite the people of New Hampshire” for rejecting his candidate, Republican George W. Bush, in the 2000 presidential primary, the Senator replied, “Everything that I heard — yes.”

McCain also revealed he has pushed for a federal investigation of the incident. “I’ve asked the FBI on several occasions to investigate that,” he said.

Destroying New Hampshire’s beloved icon to avenge his candidate’s humiliating defeat would apparently not be out of character for Rove, judging from published accounts. Bush’s top political advisor, is “adept at revenge,” according to former White House official Richard Clarke.

McCain himself is no stranger to Rove’s vengeance. In 2000 he soundly trounced Mr. Bush, 115,606 votes to 72,330. From New Hampshire, the 2000 Republican primary battle went south, in more ways than one. In South Carolina, Bush beat McCain in a campaign that set a high water mark for slander, innuendo, and character assassination.

Provenance of the Tape

The Gazette obtained this remarkable footage from 2004 Presidential candidate Vermin Supreme. Mr. Supreme is an independent candidate from Massachusetts, and is not generally considered a likely winner this November. His platform may be the only one that addresses the question of compulsory dental hygiene.

The Gazette’s 45-second online video report opens with Supreme introducing footage he shot of McCain on January 25, 2004, “right outside of the Center of New Hampshire.”

“I wanted to get to the bottom of what really happened to ‘The Old Man of the Mountain,’” Supreme says.

As the camera rolls, McCain approaches and begins the conversation by saying, “Hey, how you doin’, Vermin?” McCain and Vermin had met a few times previously on the campaign trail. After a few brief pleasantries, Supreme pops the question.

“Is it true,” he asks, “that Karl Rove was responsible for the destruction of the Old Man of the Mountain, to spite the people of New Hampshire for voting for you over George W. Bush in 2000?”

McCain answers, “Everything that I heard — yes. In a fit of anger, Karl went up there and dynamited it. I’ve asked the FBI on several occasions to investigate that.”

At this point an unidentified voice off-camera says “We gotta go, guys.” McCain exits the frame and the clip ends.



August 10, 2005


Add Cindy Sheehan to the list. She too dared to stand up for the truth, after losing a son in Bush's war, and found herself in a ditch.


It's as routine and expectable as a chicken laying an egg.

A patriotic American stands up for the truth, and Bush sends Karl Rove out to assassinate their character and pulverize their reputation.

It could be a CIA operative who is rendered inoperable, even though she tracked weapons of mass destruction -- and her CIA front company was exposed by Rove. It could be war heroes like Kerry and McCain, even though the closest Bush got to war was flying plants to Florida in a Texas National Guard Plane. It could be the former National Security Council specialist on terrorism, like Richard Clarke.

The list of slanderous attacks against Americans loyal to their nation and brave in battle goes on and on. It is what Karl Rove does best, like a chicken laying an egg -- an apt analogy to be sure -- since Rove is like Young Republicans in college today who support wars but avoid serving in them.

But what of the Americans hoodwinked by this grave betrayal of their nation? How many are taken in by the demagogues of the media who take their marching orders and messages of the day from Bush's hatchet man, Karl Rove? Millions upon millions listen to the deceptive propaganda of pill-popping Rush Limbaugh and take it as the truth.

"Their" president, the tall white man who boasts that he is God's servant, can do no wrong.

Perhaps it is because so few Democrats are willing to peel off the veneer of manufactured respectability created by Rove. Perhaps it is because most of the corporate press, especially television, dare not offend the White House out of fear that Bush will seek revenge and take actions that will harm their media consolidation plans and profits. Perhaps it is because in an age of television, a Disneyesque visual image of piety overpowers the nefarious reality of having a traitor in the White House.

After all, in TreasonGate, it is Bush and Rove vs. the CIA, not Joe Wilson -- although they would like you to think the latter. And Bush still unleashes Rove to do his stiletto jobs on anyone who would reveal the reality of the Bush lies, deceit and betrayal. Bush is no longer someone who just condones treason; he has enabled it and continues to let the same people who harmed our national security do their anti-American slime jobs out of America's House, the White House.

Now Cindy Sheehan, mother of a young son killed in service in Sadr City, Iraq, sits in a ditch outside of Crawford, Texas, as Bush unleashes Rove, yet again, to besmirch and degrade her. George and his henchmen go after women with a special relish. They are so indifferent and vengeful that even the mother of one of our soldiers killed in action is just more target practice for enforcement of their Omerta.

The Democratic leaders in Congress continue to miss the boat. They think that they need to imitate the Machiavellian appeal of Bush to moral values, when the evidence is in plain sight that the man is immoral. His only claim to credibility is that he says he believes in God, but wonder if God doesn't believe in him? Wonder if God finds him a loathsome creature who betrays the teachings of Christ? Wonder if God long ago abandoned Bush, because Bush long ago abandoned God in deed and practice?

BuzzFlash can announce to the world that Jesus saved us and God is our divine guide in governing America. But judge us then by our deeds, not our words. And so should George W. Bush be judged.

He is a man who countenances acts of evil, who harbors and encourages those who commit them in his name, out of personal loyalty -- rather than loyalty to the nation.

God will judge him harshly, as the American people should, for long ago his primary motivation became the amassing of personal power -- not the practice of religious principles.

Americans loyal to their nation -- and not the power hungry actions of an incompetent scion of a corrupt family with pedigree -- should shun him, for he endangers our safety, our Constitution, the truth, and our good names.

Add Cindy Sheehan to the list. She too dared to stand up for the truth, after losing a son in Bush's war, and found herself in a ditch.



BONUS: We may lose the probe...

The Guardian

Probe Poses Issue of What Rove Told Bush

Thursday August 11, 2005 11:16 PM

AP Photo TXSA104


Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Among the many questions surrounding the investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer is whether President Bush's top political adviser told his boss the truth about his connection to the case.

Two years ago, the White House denied that Karl Rove played any role, but revelations in the past month have shown that Rove spoke with two journalists about the operative, Valerie Plame. Whether Bush knew the truth while the White House was issuing its denials is not publicly known.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was so adamant in his denials in September 2003 that he told reporters the president knew that Rove wasn't involved in the leak.

``How does he know that?'' a reporter asked, referring to the president.

``I'm not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisers or staff,'' McClellan replied.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald questioned Bush a year ago and the prosecutor's office has questioned Rove repeatedly, so presumably investigators know the answer to what, if anything, Rove told Bush.

Whether Rove shaded the truth with Bush two years ago is a potential political problem. The president so far has stood by Rove's side, even raising the bar for dismissing subordinates. Two years ago, Bush pledged to fire any leakers, but now he says he would fire anyone who committed a crime.

If Rove didn't tell Bush the truth, that theoretically could be a legal problem for the presidential aide under the federal false statement statute.

Wayne State University law professor Peter Henning said the false statement law covers statements made to all members of the executive branch, including the president acting in his official capacity. In contrast, a typical false statement case involves lying to investigators or writing false information on a form to the government.

The difficulties in bringing even a typical false statement case are considerable. Simply misleading someone isn't enough to bring a prosecution.

``If the president asks Rove, `Do we have anything to worry about here?' and Rove says `No,' that would not be a false statement,'' said Henning. ``These two men have known each other a long time, the president is not going to question Rove closely as a law enforcement agent would, and that makes all the difference.''

Henning is a former federal prosecutor in the Justice Department's fraud section in Washington and has written a law school textbook on white-collar crime.

What is clear about Rove is that after the White House's public denials in 2003 saying Rove wasn't involved in the leak, the presidential aide told investigators behind closed doors about his conversations regarding Plame.

Asked whether it wants to retract its earlier denials, the White House refuses to comment on the grounds that the criminal investigation is ongoing.

Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and apparently at least one other government official were involved in leaking information to reporters about Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Presidential scholars say a White House's refusal to comment can suggest an administration in political trouble.

``When under fire they suddenly hide behind the shield of secrecy as though they have no control over the matter,'' said Mark J. Rozell, a public policy professor at George Mason University who has written five books on the presidency.

``What we really don't know factually is whether Rove lied to the president or whether the president knew something about Rove's role and dissembled,'' said Rozell.

The White House decision not to answer the question makes sense from the standpoint of political damage control, says Steve Hess, senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution.

The CIA leak story ``has very little traction on Main Street,'' but all that would change, Hess said, if someone is indicted in Fitzgerald's criminal investigation.

The federal grand jury investigating the leak expires in October.


On the Net:


White House:

SOURCE -,1280,-5204479,00.html

8/11: Amnesty Intellectual (It's about time.)

In pictures President Bush looks very relaxed at his Crawford ranch, while the people of the United States and the rest of the World are frightened and confused: what's going to happen next? How come we have no predictability? How come we have no idea what's going on?

With 9/11 coming up again, perhaps a bit of history will help.

In fact...

President George W. Bush spoke to the World before the UN General Assembly on November 10, 2001:

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

Throughout the corridors of power around the world, a clear message was sent: shut up.

It came in a million lies of attack from The White House, echoed proudly by a bought, scared and humbled corporate media. Despite a Zogby Poll (Oct. 04) saying 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had prior knowledge of 9/11 and consciously failed to act, and millions feeling this everywhere else, there is still substantial peer pressure to deny any other possibilities.


Why do we rationalize: "They probably knew something, but I'm not sure what" as a satisfactory answer?

Why is that a good place to stop when the answer could save the world?

It's crazy how much credibility one gets from just saying: "Well I'm not one for conspiracy theories...", no matter the nonsense or sins of omission that follow. Our herded gullibility buys fake credibility, and even though Fahrenheit 9/11 recently showed millions the media lies to protect the government from the people, we still fight to defend the half-truths we learned against concerned citizens with a wealth of evidence.


So: an all-purpose argument for everybody to tell everybody...

Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (2005)

Evil has spread across the land. Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State exposes the high-tech control grid that is being set up across America.

Out of the ashes of the September 11th tragedy, a dark empire of war and tyranny has risen. The Constitution has been shredded and America is now a Police State. This film exposes not just who was behind the 9-11 attacks, but the roots and history of its orchestrators.

Downloaded: 4,342 times


MARTIAL LAW 911: RISE OF THE POLICE STATE Information Resource Companion Web Site.




1) All information we receive is based on editorial decisions, including the repetition of a good story, like celebrity scandals. Here the footage, interviews and documents culled from hundreds of mainstream news sources is real, including foreign press, live TV slip-ups, or just great stories that got buried. This is as "real" as anything else we believe, and the use of 80% mainstream "news" sources makes this "news", not blind theorizing.

2) The militarization of security is troubling, especially when they don't tell us about it. This movie shows where America may be going, and the attacks on the Constitution and plans for the World are crazy. Whether it gets there or not is certainly debatable, but this film establishes clear intent. Widespread information may provoke public outrage, if it's done in secret it'll be impossible to stop.

3) "Qui bono" is latin for "who profits", and this film establishes the money to be made from their actions. The rich making billions of dollars off war and increased security are intimately connected to the senior members of the government, and this film is being given away for free by the people who care to expose it.

4) They rip Michael Moore: just in case you thought they were Left. And Communists.

5) They rip Republicans: just in case you thought they were Right. And Rednecks.

6) They've gone after the crimes of Clinton and Bush equally hard, while recognizing that military-industrial complex initiatives are accelerating under Bush.

7) What exists? We don't know anymore, there is no universality. This movie is not just a matter of taste: it's critical information about the people who have the most power over everyone else, and how they're getting much more control. The bias is simple: this is bad, here's proof, and there's an objective morality being violated in how people are being treated.

8) You can believe what you want: belief and disbelief require an equal measure of proof. Don't set the bar higher than for anything else and I guarantee you'll like it, and don't think just because you haven't heard it yet that it's not true. We often believe anecdotes from anybody, this movie at least provides proof.

9) It's snapshot of current events from a different angle starting at the Republican National Convention in New York last fall, and serves as a deeper sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 with a different timeline and similar impact: Why didn't we see that? Where was the press? Why aren't we looking at that right now?

10) People's reactions are priceless, both those on film and your own. Check the logic used to dismiss info, and ask why you fight to avoid revising an opinion: our thoughts are not entirely our own. We're a reflection of what we consume, there is a "normal", safe, shrinking and inclusive knowledge-base that forms common opinion about what we are supposed to know. This makes everything else "crazy" for no good reason: these are just "people" trying to tell us something for God's sake!

Our distrust of the media in general is based on the massive failures of the corporate media, and leaving us all hopelessly ignorant.

So: "Qui bono?" Who profits?

With the best sources of alternative media: we do.

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -