How Far Have We Traveled Down the Road to Fascism?

Naomi Wolf of The Guardian wrote this article in April 2007. You must read it and pass it on to every American you know.

In the article, she describes ten steps that have been taken by governments in the past that shifted from a democracy to a fascist dictatorship. Here are the 10 criteria and a quick review of how our country currently fits. (Although I'm doing this summary, you really must read her article). This is why we need to act now:

1) A terrifying internal and external enemy is invoked

We must fear "terrorists" and "enemy combatants".

We are told that they are in our country plotting to kill us. They are in the Middle East plotting to kill us. They are in Europe plotting to kill us.

We must give the Bush administration unprecedented power to defeat these unprecedented enemies.

2) A prison system is created outside the rule of law.

We have secret prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan and, of course, Guantanamo Bay.

Those are just the one's we know about.

3) A "thug caste" is created to scare citizens into submission

New additions to America during the Bush administration years are Blackwater and all the other private military companies. While they are mostly associated with Iraq, we must remember that they were hired by the Bush administration to "keep order" during Katrina.

They don't just operate overseas, my friends.

4) An internal surveillance system is established

We all know about the Bush administration's eavesdropping.

Starting this Monday, they will also have the National Applications Office using spy satellites to watch us.

5) Citizen's groups are harassed.

Peace activists are on the "no-fly list".

Protests have been classified as terrorist activity.

MoveOn.org was reprimanded by Congress for placing a newspaper ad.

This one may be just getting started. Stay tuned.

6) Government engages in arbitrary detention and release

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA - the guys at the airport) has a list of people to be searched and basically harassed when they fly. The list includes people such as Senator Ted Kennedy, two female peace activists from San Francisco, and a former marine turned Professor who gave a speech condemning the Bush administration.

7) Key individuals are targeted and silenced

State legislatures have put pressure on universities to penalize academics that are critical of the Bush administration.

Lawyers have had careers ruined for speaking up and/or working for detainees.

The US Attorney firing scandal (when US Attorneys were canned for failing to be "loyal Bushies").

8) The press is controlled

Arrests of journalists are at an "all time high".

Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, was outed by the Bush administration because her husband reported their lies about Saddam Hussein seeking yellowcake uranium (their big evidence for why we needed to go to war).

The Bush administration has their own propaganda channel (Fox News).

Anyone that pays attention knows that, with the exception of parts of the internet (for now), the American press can no longer be trusted.

9) Dissent equals treason

Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows President Bush to declare any of us an "enemy combatant" for any reason and we can be locked up in prison with no right to contact anyone.

It is now legal to be "disappeared".

10) The rule of law is suspended

No law governs Blackwater.

John Warner's amendment allows the Executive branch to use the military for civilian law enforcement (read: martial law).

NSPD-51 is ready and waiting.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the looks of this list.

Open Letter to Diane Feinstein

Oh my God. You did it again.

Yesterday you voted Yea on the Lieberman/Kyl amendment, which basically calls Iran's military a terrorist organization and informally declares war on their country.

I'm confused by your vote. Don't you remember how the Iraq war started? Let me remind you:

While the media was airing program after program aimed to get the American people to see Iraq as a enemy which needed to be destroyed as soon as possible, Congress gave the irresponsible President Bush the authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein. Many Congressional Representatives believed he wouldn't use it, but needed the authority to use as leverage to stop Saddam from developing more weapons of mass destruction.

They were wrong. The Bush administration pulled the inspectors and went to war, even though they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States.

Five years, 455 billion dollars, 1 million dead Iraqis, 3,801 dead soldiers, 27,753 wounded soldiers, at least 800 dead contractors, and 203 dead journalists later we still have no end in sight.

So how did you learn from that experience? While the media demonizes Ahmadinejad and Fox News encourages bombing Iran, you vote to open the door for the same president to use force on another innocent country.

I sickens me to see that you learned nothing. Either that, or you actually want to go to war with Iran. Either way, your vote is wrong.

The last time I wrote to you, after you voted to allow the Bush administration even more power to eavesdrop on Americans, I was ashamed to call you my representative because of your displayed willingness to ignore your oath to defend the Constitution.

This time, however, I'm personally offended by your vote.

The United States is a democracy and I am responsible for the votes cast by the people I elect to represent me in Congress. I voted for you. If the Bush administration uses this as a stepping stone to attack Iran, after everything we should have learned about how the Bush administration operates during the run up to the Iraq war, you will have made me a war criminal by having put your vote into the Senate.

How dare you put me in that position.

On a more personal level, I'm driving down to Camp Pendleton tomorrow to say goodbye to my best friend who is being sent off on his second tour in Iraq. If your shameful vote turns into an attack on Iran, the Iranians will undoubtedly take out their completely justified anger on our troops being held hostage in Iraq by the Bush administration and every single Congressperson (like yourself) that refuses to take a stand and bring them home. They will be sitting ducks, waiting to be slaughtered.

And I will blame you.

While I have serious doubts that you will actually take these steps because of your displayed willingness to be a Bush administration co-conspirator and/or total coward, you do have a chance to make this right. Here's how you do it:

1. Log on to Amazon.com and buy a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America
   
2. Read it
3. Note all the ways that George W. Bush has violated the laws put forth in that document and join Barbara Boxer in calling for his impeachment.
   

The only way that the Iran war can be prevented, the Iraq war can end, and the Constitution can be protected and defended is for the current occupants of the Executive branch to be held accountable for their crimes. The only way to hold them accountable is to throw them out of office. If there is justice in this country, they should also go to jail, but I'll take what I can get.

Anything less is a failure. Unfortunately for this country, the choice is yours.

Why Bush Wants Us To Believe Iran's Our Enemy

Short story: I think the Bush administration might switch from the Shi'ite's side to the Sunni's side in Iraq and in the Middle East region.

Before I start, a few things you need to know:

Iran = Shi'ite

Iraq's Government = Shi'ite

Saudi Arabia = Sunni

bin-Laden and Al Qaeda = Sunni

Al Anbar province = Sunni

So General Petraeus gets up and testifies that we need to stay in Iraq. Big reason: things are working in al-Anbar province. Their story has been that this one sheik's tribe struck a deal with group Bush calls "al-Qeada in Iraq" and violence there has gone way down, due to (of course) the Americans.

Of course, it's total bullshit. The violence stopped when we paid the local Sunni's to stop it. We also sat by while they killed and forcibly removed (aka ethnic cleansed) the Shi'ites in al-Anbar. Oh yeah, and that sheik that shook Bush's hand wasn't a sheik at all. For being a phony and helping Bush sell his story, he was assassinated on Thursday, September 21st, the same day Bush bullshitted all of this to the American public .

Anyway, the curious thing, and the reason the al-Anbar story worked so well for the Bush administration, is because both sides were Sunnis. We've basically been fighting Sunni's in Iraq for four and a half years. Sunnis are Al-Qaeda, the insurgents, Saddam Hussein, and the 19 hijackers. Now we are able to create conditions where they are cool with us? How? Why?

Meanwhile, Iraq's government takes a stand and tells Blackwater to get the hell out. The most interesting thing about the Blackwater situation is not that they would randomly kill a bunch of people. Their penchant for disgusting acts of violence has been known for a long time. The most interesting thing is the fact that the Iraqi government is standing up to the United States. Why are the Iraqis standing up now?

Could it be because they are ready for us to leave?

With the official line of bullshit that we've been fed for the past 5 years, this should be a glorious day. The Iraqi government is standing up! They are ready for Americans to leave the country! Right? This is an indication that they are prepared to take the first step in getting us out of Iraq. Sweet. Our boys can come home now since "When Iraq stands up, we'll stand down."

Um, nope. The Bush administration doesn't want to leave Iraq. Are you kidding? They have built the largest embassy in the world there. They've got their military bases in the heart of the Middle East. We've lost 3,798 soldiers, 201 journalists, and 800 contractors . They want the power, oil, money and puppet government that they forced us to sacrifice so much for.

So, this "standing up" thing is a problem. Iraq's government officials, the stander uppers, are Shi'ite. Iran's government is also Shi'ite. Iranians are supporting the Shi'ite's in Iraq, the country right next door (and why wouldn't they? Wouldn't we support Americans living in Mexico if they were caught in a war zone?). If Bush needs to change the current Iraqi government, he might have to flip to partnering with the Sunnis and make Shi'ites the enemy. Iran's government will not sit idle and stay silent if the Shi'ites in Iraq go back to being slaughtered, like they were under Saddam Hussian. Ethnic cleansing of Shi'ites in al-Anbar certainly couldn't have eased that fear.

So, the Bush administration must make Iran an enemy.

And Iran, unlike what the mainstream media keeps saying, is not trying to pick a fight. Quite the opposite. Ahmadinejad is in the United States today. He is having a Q&A at Columbia University, something our president would never do. He said he is not looking to build a nuclear bomb. At the very least, a sign that he is willing to negotiate. He also wanted to pay his respects at the World Trade Center. This has been presented as an outrage (outrage!), but it isn't. His country didn't attack us, he helped us in Afghanistan to hunt down the people who did, and this is America. If a leader of another country wants to visit our historical sites, we should welcome the opportunity to have him understand our history, and get an appreciation of our pain.

Even if he might say things the President doesn't like.

But it plays out like this: The Bush administration wants our military to stay in Iraq but won't tell us their true motivation. They need the Iraqi government either on board with the administration's plan or the current government might need to be demonized and replaced. Iran has been supporting Iraq's Shi'ite government (like we ordered the whole world to do) and will continue to support them. Bush needs to make an enemy out of Iran.

You think this makes sense? Please share your thoughts.

*Big thanks to Cenk Uygur from The Young Turks for helping me to connect some dots with his words this morning on his Air America (AM 1150 in Los Angeles) radio show.

United States Military - As Cool to Work for as Blackwater?

Blackwater Guards were acting as traffic cops. One guy slows down but doesn't completely stop when they want him to, so they open fire on his car. 8 people killed.

Blackwater said they were ambushed. They lied. But it doesn’t really matter because there are no laws for Blackwater anyway.

Blackwater is made up of guys who used to be our soldiers. But they no longer work for America. They do what Blackwater tells them to do because Blackwater gives them a lot more of our taxpayer money. It's also cool to go to war with immunity. No more pesky Uniform Code of Military Justice.

This is an "American" company and these guys live and train here... in our country. The Executive branch has stolen our military and has created one of it’s own. It’s currently overseas, but if the Iraqi government can be strong enough to get rid of it in their country, Bush's self proclaimed "professional army" might be coming home.

Military Commissions Act

NSPD-51

Executive Order allowing the seizure of assets

National Applications Office

Seriously. These Bush guys are scary. Contact Congress.

Bush Pardoned Himself for War Crimes

Here's the video from CNN telling about the bill that passed the House. I don't know if it passed the Senate. I'll check it out and let you know.

UPDATE: When you watch the video, you find out that this bill wasn't something passed in the last few days. It was passed in mid-2006 before the Congress was switched over to the Democrats.

This being the case, I have to assume that the bill Cafferty is referring to is the Military Commissions Act, which is one of the most shameful pieces of legislation in American history. This is the same bill that eliminated habeas corpus, which is a fancy way of describing the right to say, "Hey! You got the wrong guy!"

The habeas corpus aspect of the Military Commissions Act is well known to the public, but the immunity portion was news to me. Unfortunately, the immunity for Bush and his co-conspirators that Cafferty refers to is there, probably because the bill came into existence to protect Rumsfeld's war criminal ass.

The Military Commissions Act came into being after Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's ex-driver, got thrown into Guantanamo Bay in 2002. He challenged his status as an "enemy combatant" in Hamden vs. Rumsfeld and won. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration's military commission system violated both United States and international laws.

So, in typical Bush fashion, he got his Republican goons in Congress (remember: this was in 2006) to change the law. Not only are the Bush administration's universally illegal activities now legal in the United States for the future, they included a provision granting immunity to the administration officials who authorized torture pre-Military Commissions Act and to all the mindless followers who carried out their immoral orders.

With immunity for giving the orders, Rumsfeld is off the hook for the case he already lost and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Powell, and every other person tainted by the Bush administration is safe from cases that should have been brought in the future.

The founders are rolling over in their graves.

9/11 Warnings Were Ignored Starting in 2000

Dan posted this article from the San Francisco Gate/ New York Times. Here's the gist of it:

"A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the FBI in 2000 to warn about the existence of a U.S.-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he has decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly.

The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later blocked the team from sharing any of its information with the FBI."

Later in the article we find out that the FBI canceled scheduled meetings with this military intelligence team because they were afraid that the data-mining methods used in operation Able Danger may have exposed the FBI to controversy.

Shaffer says he told the 9/11 Commission about this situation, but it was left out of their report.

One thing I find interesting is the revelation that there were data-mining concerns in mid-2000. Bill Clinton was still in office in mid-2000. Makes you wonder how long this data-mining of American's information has been going on and how many Democrats are either aware of it or involved in it. (After all, it's no secret that the Republicans are all about it).

Something to keep in mind.

I Apologize for Missing this Crucial Story

To my non-existent regular readers: I have failed you. As usual, the despicable mainstream media completely ignored a huge story, but I too failed to warn my people in time.

I regret to inform you that I have allowed International Talk Like A Pirate Day to pass us by yesterday without a word.

Won't happen again. I hope you can forgive me.

Meyer Tasered for Talking about Voter Caging in Public

Here is a link to an extended version of that video we've all seen of that 21 year old kid, Andrew Meyer, from the University of Florida being tased at a school assembly while trying to question John Kerry.

The clip of the actual tasing has been on the news over and over again, but it's very different when you see the incident in full. There's so many disturbing things about this. Here' s just a few:

• Andrew didn't push his way up to the front to ask these questions, like the crazy person the media has made him out to be. He waited his turn and was given the mike.

• He was holding up and asking questions about Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast. I've read this book and within in it we find out that millions of voters were caged by the Republicans. I assumed that nothing was being done because our representatives didn't know about it. However, John Kerry clearly says he read the book. How could he have read that book, and 3 years later still have done nothing about it? More importantly, why has nothing been done?

• The students around him clapped and were smiling when the cops dragged him away from the microphone. What is wrong with my generation when a student, armed with a book, is dragged out of a school assembly and mildly electrocuted for asking some damn important questions and his fellow students cheer?

We are in serious trouble in this country. If this can happen to this 21 year old honor student, you bet your ass it can happen to you.

Wake up America! What's it going to take?

Rev. Lennox Yearwood's leg broken at Petraeus hearing

In the halls of the Capitol building. Can you believe this?

Blackwater: Please Stay in Iraq

Iraqi officials banned Blackwater from Iraq this week, ordering all of their employees to leave the country immediately due to 10-20 Iraqi's who died in an attack Sunday that the victims claim was unprovoked.

Since then, Secretary of State Condi Rice has made a phone call to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and Blackwater's license is now "under review".

Blackwater, and all the other private security companies that are operating in Iraq, represent a great injustice to our troops, considering private contractors are paid way more than our soldiers to take the same risk. These companies also represent a great injustice to Iraqi's, because there is nobody holding their employees accountable for the crimes they commit since private contractors exist in a legal black hole.

Despite these facts, my biggest selfish fear is that the Iraqi officials actually succeed in kicking Blackwater out of their country. That would mean that Blackwater would be forced to make their money right here in the United States, and the only people who need to be kept in check around here are all of us.

The last thing we need is for Bush to have a private Army hanging around with nothing to do. Just read how Blackwater behaved in New Orleans after Katrina.

Do you really want these people in your neighborhood?

Restoration of Habeas Corpus Fails Too

Not only did Jim Webb's "Be Fair to the Troops" Amendment fail 56-44 today (60 needed to pass), the bill to restore our right to a lawyer and fair trial failed by the same exact number.

That's because the same exact sorry excuses for Americans voted against this bill too.

All the Democrats voted for the bills (yay!), but Joe Leiberman (the only Independent) and 43 Republicans forgot their oaths to protect the Constitution, and their obligation to care for the troops,and voted against them. Because it's easier this way, here is the list of Republicans that have read the Bill of Rights and/or have a conscience:

Susan Collins (Maine)
Chuck Hagel (Nebraska)
Gordon Smith (Oregon)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
John Sununu (New Hampshire)

That's all folks!

Jim Webb's "Be Fair to the Troops" Amendment Fails

All the Republicans and Joe Lieberman that voted against this amendment just slapped the troops in the face. Not only have they refused to help end Bush's crazy, corrupt war, but now they won't even allow our friends in the military to hang with us for at least as long as they just had to serve in hell... before they have to go back.

In Vietnam, you served once and were done. In the "War on Terror", you are sent over and over again until you're dead, physically or mentally disabled, or legally off the hook.

Why are we letting our representatives let the Bush administration play Russian roulette with our soldiers lives?

How long can we allow these Senators to allow Bush get away with this?

Olbermann: Beginning of the End of America?

A great history lesson, and a healthy dose of perspective

We Should Support the Jim Webb Amendment

No matter what you believe in regards to the "mission" in Iraq, the Webb Amendment (allowing our troops to have as much time home as they spend overseas) is only fair.

Please watch this video.

If you agree that this is the right thing to do, go here and you will find a list of Senators and their phone numbers. We need 3 Republicans to vote for this bill for it to pass and these Senators are believed to be the most likely to cross the isle and be reasonable.

Please call these Senators today and tell them to support the Webb amendment.

Thanks

National Applications Office (NAO): Watching Americans Via Satellite Starting October 1st

On September 6, 2007, the House of Representatives' Homeland Security Committee held a hearing regarding the National Applications Office, which is scheduled to open on October 1st. As described by C-SPAN, the National Applications Office is going to be a new part of the Department of Homeland Security which " will process requests for satellite imagery and other technologies for domestic use."

In other words, the National Applications Office is going to process requests made by local, state, and federal officials for the ability to use the United State's military satellites on American citizens.

That's right. They will have a whole office dedicated to watching you.

The fact that most people haven't heard of this program should not be surprising because this program has been developed largely in secret. The Homeland Security Committee (the Congressional committee in charge of conducting oversight on the Department of Homeland Security, an Executive Branch department) didn't learn of this new office until the Wall Street Journal broke the story during Congress's recess on August 15th, even though the National Applications Office has been in development since 2005. In fact, Hugo Teufel, the Chief Privacy Officer at the Department of Homeland Security, who testified that he has been conducting extensive oversight on the program, was not told about it's existence until two months ago, in July 2007 (forcing us to wonder just how much input he could have possibly had in its policies).

During the hearing, every single Congressman on the committee expressed concern over the individual privacy issues inherent in the development of a National Applications Office and over who would be in charge of making sure that privacy laws were being followed.

We found out that they have good reason to be concerned.

One of the most important causes for concern is the current lack of standard protocols for how the business of using spy satellites on American's would work, even though the program is scheduled to begin in a matter of days. We know that these protocols don't yet exist because:

• Despite having previously told Chairman Bennie Thompson that a copy had been forwarded to Congress, Charles Allen (DHS Chief Intelligence Officer at the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the guy who will be in charge of the National Applications Office) admitted that the standard operating procedures for law enforcement issues are not yet finished and that he thinks they can finish most of them by the October 1 start date (go to 1:45 into the testimony to hear for yourself).

• When Rep. Al Green asked the DHS officials where they would go to get the required warrant if the National Applications Office wanted to use the satellites on an American's home, after a few seconds of dumbfounded silence, Dan Sutherland (DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer) said he assumed that they would go to the court in the local jurisdiction, but he really wasn't sure (1:39 into the hearing).

• Rep. Jane Harmon (and others) asked the panel if Posse Comitatus has been addressed (which states that the military is not to be used for domestic law enforcement). The answer from Dan Sutherland was that he thinks the lawyers have looked at the issue, but again, he didn't know (go to 1:42 to watch Jane Harmon's questioning and the panel's non-response, as she nails the issue right on the head).

Another concerning issue is the fact that the current plan for the National Applications Office does not include any real outside oversight. When asked by Rep. Paul Brown (whose questioning can be seen 1:30 into the hearing) who would be conducting oversight, here are the answers given by Charles Allen:

• The Department of Homeland Security (the department that houses the National Application Office, and the head of which is currently Michael Chertoff, an Executive Branch appointee)

• The National Geospacial Intelligence Agency (which is not involved in law enforcement, but instead the mapping and terrain viewing aspect of the spy satellite program)

• The Director of National Intelligence (a position invented by the Bush administration in April 2005, which is currently held by Mike McConnell, a privatized intelligence pioneer)

• The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (which operates within, you guessed it, the Executive Branch)

• And as an afterthought, he added Congress (which had been left in the dark about the program until they read about it in the newspaper)

So, the spying office within the Executive Branch is going to be policed by the Executive Branch and the map guys. Oh yeah, and Congress if the Wall Street Journal lets them know what's up.

Not buying it.

And as if this wasn't enough, there is also the issue, not examined by Congress, of where this whole National Applications Office idea came from in the first place. The official story, as told by Charles Allen, is that a fabulous Blue Ribbon Study recommended the creation of the National Applications Office in a report issued in September 2005, and because it was recommended, of course, it must be implemented. What he didn't tell us was who conducted the study:

• 3 out of the 9 main contributors to the study (Chairman Keith Hall, Retried Army LTG Edward Anderson, and Kemp Lear) all worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, a Washington DC consulting firm whose Vice President was Mike McConnell, up until he accepted Bush's nomination for Director of National Intelligence (the office that will be in charge of "oversight").

• 4 out of the 9 main contributors (Jeff Baxter, Dr. Paul Gilman, Patrick M. Hughes, and Joseph Whitley, Esq) are all Republicans appointed or nominated to their government positions by George W. Bush.

• 2 out of the 9 main contributors (Thomas W. Conroy and Kevin O'Connell) didn't have much information available about them on the internet.

So, at least 7 of the 9 genius's who created this study, which recommended watching Americans with military spy satellites, are either associated with the Bush administration and/or Mike McConnell.

Something smells foul.

So what's Congress gonna do about it? Well, so far, they've sent a letter to Michael Chertoff asking that he postpone the start date of the National Applications Office.

If he responded, we don't yet know.

I'll keep you posted...


Follow up posts:

October 1, 2007: Score One Congress! National Applications Office on Hold
January 12, 2007: National Applications Office is Back

Hurricane Humberto Sets Scary Record

Never heard of Hurricane Humberto? That's because at 10am (Central Time) Wednesday, it was a just a tropical depression with wind speeds around 35 mph chillin' off the coast. By 12:15pm Thursday, it was a hurricane with wind speeds of 85 mph as it slammed into Texas.

That's a 50mph increase in less than 15 hours.

"No tropical cyclone on record has ever reached this intensity at a faster rate near landfall"

Right off our shores. Let's get Bush the hell out of office so we can do something about this. The United States will do nothing about global warming while this guy is in power. Everyone knows it.

Enough.

ps- you hear that a piece of Arctic Ice the size of Florida melted last week? Well, I shouldn't say "week". It only took 6 days.

Former Reagan Official Warns Bush Might Attack US

On July 20, 2007, Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, issued a public warning that "we are about to experience another 9/11-WMD experience" orchestrated by the current occupants of the White House. The purpose, he says, of attacking his own country is that "an attack will activate Bush’s new executive orders, which create a dictatorial police state in event of “national emergency.” He's referring to NSPD-51, in which Bush gave himself the powers to do just that.

The Russian media, which published this story today, add that the "staged attack" would also be used to launch a war with Iran.

I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist, but a very scary picture emerges when you put the facts in a timeline:

• September 11, 2001 - The United States is attacked. Bush uses the attack on 9/11 to enact the Patriot Act, start a war with Afghanistan, and start a war with Iraq (there's obviously much more, but let's keep it brief).

• October 1, 2002 -The Bush administration and Department of Homeland Security creates NORTHCOM, which "organizes and executes homeland defense and civil support missions...as ordered by the president and secretary of defense."

• May 9, 2007 - Bush issues NSPD-51, which gives him complete control of the government in the case of a broadly defined "emergency".

• July 17, 2007 - Bush issues an Executive Order that gives him the power to seize the assets of anyone that interferes with his mission in Iraq.

• August 30, 2007 - Nuclear weapons are mysteriously taken out of storage, loaded on the wings of a B-52 bomber, and flown from North Dakota to Louisiana.

• September 7 and September 11, 2007 - Osama bin Laden reappears twice in 4 days, after not being seen or heard from since June of 2006.
  

• September 14, 2007 - Air Force to be grounded

• September 15, 2007 - Massive anti-war/impeachment march to be held in Washington D.C.
  

• October 1, 2007 - Scheduled start date of the National Applications Office, which will allow almost all law enforcement officials to use spy satellites on Americans that can penetrate through buildings and underground bunkers. Civil liberties advocates call it "Big Brother in the Sky"

• October 15-20, 2007 - "Vigilant Shield 08" to be conducted by NORTHCOM in Oregon and Arizona. Vigilant Shield 08 is described as an "exercise for homeland defense and defense support of civil authorities missions", which some believe is code for a test run of martial law.
  

And these are just the things that we know about.

Connect all these dots, along with the undeniably logical analysis of a former Reagan administration official (not some blogger crackpot) which concludes that Bush has a lot to gain from attacking the United States, and the picture that emerges indicates that we as a country have a decision to make: Do we impeach and get these guys out of power or wait and come what may?

I say impeach. Who's with me?

General Petraeus Was Not Sworn In

When testifying in front of Congress on Monday and Tuesday of this week, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were not made to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as is customary when a witness testifies in any court.

To make the inevitable Vietnam comparison, General William Westmoreland (the General's whose testimony has been this week's Vietnam connection) was sworn in.

For pointing this out on Monday, Ray McGovern, an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the early sixties and then a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990, was tossed out of the hearing.

Nuclear Armed B-52 bomber: What Actually Occured

On August 30th, 2007, a B-52 bomber with nuclear weapons loaded onto the wings took off from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and flew 3 1/2 hours to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

The Pentagon received a "bent spear" call from officers at Minot Air Force Base, originally believed to be a joke, which revealed that the officers could not account for 6 nuclear weapons.

When the plane, whose crew members were reportedly unaware that they had nuclear weapons, landed at Barksfield Air Force Base, the armed nuclear warheads remained on the bomber for approximately ten hours, while the officers who discovered the weapons worked to convince their superiors that they too were not kidding.

The story was leaked to the Military Times by three officers from Barksdale Air Force Base, who remained anonymous for obvious reasons.

One important aspect of this story that remains unclear is how many nuclear warheads were loaded on the plane's wings. The Military Times, BBC, and Global Security Newswire originally reported that 5 nuclear weapons were found at Barksdale Air Force Base. The "Bent Spear" call to the Pentagon from the officers at Minot Air Force Base reported that 6 nuclear warheads were missing.

One thing that makes this a little less concerning is the update from the Military Times that the officers who provided this information have updated the story to say 6 nukes were found, but we don't yet have a consensus in the media that we are not missing a nuclear weapon somewhere in middle America.

Air Force to Stand Down Friday, September 14th

Supposedly in response to that B-52 bomber with live nukes attached that flew from North Dakota to Louisiana, the entire Air Force will stand down this Friday for a security review.

On the eve of September 11th, the day when NORAD was nowhere to be found, this makes me nervous. Why can't they do their security review and still have pilots available to take care of the security of the United States?

Nuclear Weapons Were Loaded on the Plane's Wings

On August 30th, 2007, a B-52 bomber carried 5 or 6 nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

The BBC reports that instead of the warheads being safely transported within the plane, the nuclear warheads were attached to cruise missiles and loaded, ready to be fired, on the wings.

There is another disturbing aspect of this report. The "5 or 6" part. Some sources, such as CNN, reported that the plane carried 6 nukes. The BBC reported 5. Fox reported both numbers, but it's not like facts matter to them anyway.

Why don't we know how many nukes were loaded on that plane? Shouldn't this question be one of the easiest to get straight?

And if they think 6 nukes were taken out of storage in North Dakota, but only 5 were collected upon landing in Louisiana, where the hell is that other nuke?

General Petraeus's Numbers: What's Not Counted

I'm watching C-SPAN today (and will be continuing tomorrow) and both General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker repeatedly say that the level of violence in Iraq has gone down.

Here's why their numbers shouldn't give anyone additional confidence. According to the Washington Post, there are a lot of deaths that are not being counted. The deaths that "don't count" include:

- Shite vs. Shite fighting deaths (which is most of the fighting taking place in the Southern part of Iraq)

- Sunni vs. Sunni fighting deaths (the type of fighting taking place in the Northern part of Iraq). This includes all attacks perpetrated by the Sunni's (who used to be our enemies but are somehow now our friends) who we are paying to fight "al-Qaeda in Iraq", regardless of who they actually killed.

- If someone died by being shot in the front of the head (if they were shot through the back of the head, it's considered "sectarian violence". The front of the head is considered "criminal" and, for whatever reason, doesn't count).

- Any Iraqi deaths where the killer cannot be identified.

On top of all these omissions, because the military stopped releasing their numbers on civilians deaths in late 2005, no one can go back and add up any of these numbers to do a fact check.

According to Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan, most independent counts do not agree with the Pentagon's assertion of drops in civilian deaths.

So, in effect, we should be skeptical of all the numbers that are released in this report. With so many omissions, and no method of fact checking, we cannot rely on them.

It's sad and shameful, but it's the truth.

Summary of Possible Attorney General Replacements

It's been put off a few times already, but Bush is supposedly going to announce his pick for the next Attorney General sometime this week. Here is a list of the names that have been floating around as possibilities and a brief analysis of why Bush would pick that person:

Michael Chertoff: currently the Secretary of Homeland Security

Has proven himself to be loyal to Bush and his ideology. Chertoff was a co-sponsor of the Patriot Act, was in charge of the FEMA response to Katrina, and pushed the immigration bill which Bush tried to get Congress to pass in June of this year

Paul Clement: currently the United States Solicitor General

Clement is next in the line of succession for the job and will be the acting Attorney General when Alberto Gonzales' resignation goes into effect on September 17th. A member of the Federalist Society and a former clerk to Justice Scalia, Clement is likely in step ideologically with the Bush administration. (For a more detailed analysis, click here)

Orrin Hatch: Republican Senator from Utah

The uber-conservative Hatch was the only member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who failed to publicly denounce Alberto Gonzales and believes that global warming is "science fiction". In other words, he's crazy and stubborn. Not unlike Bush himself.

Joe Lieberman: Independent Senator from Connecticut

Lieberman, being a Senator, would be one of the candidates most likely to be approved by the Senate. Bush would choose him because he has publicly declared his desire to bomb Iran. Lieberman has also consistently defended Bush's Iraq policies.

Ted Olsen: former Bush-appointed Solicitor General (retired July 2004)

Olsen was one of the lawyers to argue Bush's case in the 2000 Florida recount debacle. His third wife was a passenger killed on Flight #77, which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th.

Lawrence Silberman: federal judge on the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Served as the Deputy Attorney General under both Nixon and Ford. Has been described as "a conservative along the lines of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, his longtime friends."

George Terwilliger: a partner in the D.C. office of the international law firm White & Chase LLP

Terwilliger was a leader of Bush's legal team during the 2000 Florida recount. He also served as the Deputy Attorney General under Bush's father, George H.W. Bush.

Washington Journal: Bush's Secret Power Grabs

I found this video that aired on Washington Journal in May that talks about NSPD-51 (the presidential directive that will allow Bush to control just about everything in this country in the case of a ridiculously broadly defined "emergency").

This interview also reveals that Bush made some kind of deal with some leaders from the European Union that would serve to "economically integrate" our country with members of the EU.

I'll look into this more in the coming days, but for now, check out this video.

Bush Makes A Fool of Himself in Australia

So Bush went to speak at a summit in Australia last week.

First of all, they had to start his speech 10 minutes late because they didn't have enough people to fill the seats. They had to clear the balcony, and move those people to the front so that it wouldn't be so obvious on the tv cameras.

Then he gets up on the stage and thanks the Australian Prime Minister for being a great host of the OPEC summit. Except this was not a meeting of the oil cartel. This was the APEC summit, the annual meeting of leaders from 21 Pacific Rim countries.

Next, he thanks the Austrian troops that are fighting with us in Iraq. Catch that? He thanked the Austrians.

And when he was finished, after receiving a less than enthusiastic applause, he walks the wrong way off the stage.

You can't make this stuff up. Aren't you proud?

Larry Craig's "Accidental" Voice Mail

The official story on this voicemail is that Larry Craig was trying to call his lawyer, but dialed the wrong number and left this message. A few things that make me wonder:

1) Larry Craig made this call from his cell phone. Why wouldn't he have his lawyer's number on speed dial, or at least in his contacts? Why would he be dialing manually?

2) This is all we know about the recipient of this message: "the phone's owner, who is a Washington, D.C., resident not involved in politics and is not the person the Senator was trying to reach."

There are rumors going around the blogosphere that this tape was leaked by Craig's lawyer. Maybe this was done to get the idea that Craig was "railroaded" out into the open. I don't know.

But I also heard a rumor...make that a fact... that the Bush administration has been listening to and recording people's phone calls.

Makes you wonder.

Larry Craig Outed for Opposing Bush's Eavesdropping?

The other day, Arlen Specter (an old-school Republican who's still in the Senate) spoke publicly in defense of Larry Craig (the guy that got caught looking to get freaky in an airport men's room).

This is puzzling, being that it's political suicide. Arlen Specter has been around forever (he served on the Warren Commission, for God's sake) and wouldn't get in the middle of this sex scandal unless he had a damn good political reason. So what could that reason be? What is the connection between Arlen Specter and Larry Craig?

I'm pretty sure it all comes back to eavesdropping (paging Richard Nixon).

Arlen Specter is pissed about the NSA spying program, which allows a wide range of phone calls to be tapped by the Bush administration with no oversight. Another person who has been openly against this program, it turns out, is Larry Craig (go figure that bathroom boy wants to keep his personal life private). Specter wants to challenge the Bush administration on the spying program and is going to need all the votes that he can get, especially from the Republicans. The resignation of Larry Craig, because of this gay sex scandal, takes one of those Senate votes away. Score one for Bush.

Bush would also score in another way by releasing this story about Craig: it scares the other hypocritical Republican in-the-closet gay Senators into submission (because the guy who outed Craig is quite certain there are more). It's a "vote my way or I'll Larry Craig your ass" type of thing.

In this regard, the timing of Craig's outing works well for the Bush administration (keep in mind that Larry Craig was arrested three months ago, but this information is just coming out now). In the next few weeks Bush wants $50 billion more approved for the war, Bush's NSA spying program is going to be revisited, and Bush needs his next Attorney General to be approved. He's going to need his Republican Senator's votes for all of these tasks.

(As a side note, the timing of Craig's outing (the day after Alberto Gonzales resigned) also served to bury the news coverage of Gonzales' resignation. With a new sex scandal to cover, the media didn't look too deeply into why the Attorney General had to go.)

This isn't just a crazy conspiracy theory. There is a lot of speculation in Washington DC that Craig was set up, and the circumstances around his arrest (undercover cop working to bust gay guys in an airport) does raise questions. There is also the revelation that George W. Bush has referred to Larry Craig as "a God damned traitor" and that Bush had instructed the National Republican Senatorial Committee as early as December 2005 to look for someone to run against Larry Craig in 2008. Would it really be that surprising to find out that the Bush administration ate one of their own, especially one that Bush considered a "traitor" who needed to be replaced in the Senate?

Larry Craig himself said he was "railroaded" on the message he left for his lawyer on the wrong answering machine. Arlen Specter is willing to put is ass on the line for this. Craig even took back his resignation.

And no one has been pointing fingers at the Democrats. If they're not pointing at the Democrats as the railroaders, who else could it be?

It's all speculation, of course, but it makes sense. Your thoughts?

Senator Ted Stevens Makes Stuff Up

Here's proof

9/4/07 Keith Olbermann Special Comment: Bush Lies, Lied, and will Lie

This was aired last night on Countdown with Keith Olbermann about Bush's recent comments regarding Iraq.

Barack Obama's Campaign Just Screwed Up

I'd like to share with you guys the email I just got from Barack Obama's campaign. I only read the first four paragraphs, but check this out:

"To build momentum for Barack in the early states, supporters nationwide are hosting Countdown for Change house parties on Saturday, September 15th."

Saturday September 15th is the same day as the anti-war and impeachment protest in Washington DC. I've heard about this protest since at least May on Air America and have seen it written about on multiple blogs this summer. It will be a perfect day for the people to join together because (I'm not sure if this was intentional or not) it's also the same day that the big report on Iraq is going to be released. Either way, the point is that I've known about this day for a long time.

So now that the day is getting closer, I get this email from Barack Obama, and he's asking me to host a little party in his honor on September 15th? I personally think his staffers must know about the protest. It's going to be a big one, and if I have heard about it more than once, I'm sure someone on his campaign staff has gotten word.

I can't help but be angry that Obama, who keeps claiming that he's anti-war and anti-Bush, would not only fail to help the organizers get people into the streets but would actually take people away from protesting to chit-chat about his campaign.

How is this leading the country? I don't know about everybody else but I want to vote for the guy that says, "I know something is deeply wrong with this administration. I see, as I believe many Americans see, that the people who are currently in charge of the White House are not acting in our best interests. I would like everyone who agrees with me to join me in Washington DC. We will be peaceful, but we will be heard."

The only thing Obama is currently leading is his own campaign.

I feel cheesy saying it, but Kucinich is looking better all the time.

Attacking Larry Craig: More Than Gay Bashing

Larry Craig, the Senator from Idaho, is resigning from the Senate. As most everyone on the planet knows, Larry Craig was arrested after soliciting sex in an airport men's room. He has denied that he is gay, but after being pressured by his Republican colleagues, he will be ending his Senate career.

Compare that to the story of David Vitter, a Republican Senator from Louisiana. David Vitter had been rumored to have hired prostitutes, which he denied, until his phone number was found on the list turned over by the "DC madam". Unlike the debatable "crime" committed by Larry Craig (after all, he was arrested for tapping his foot and waving his hand under the bathroom stall divider), prostitution is definitely illegal in Washington DC. Instead out running Vitter out of town, Senate Republicans defended Vitter, describing his affair as a personal matter. Vitter, needless to say, it still in the Senate.

A simple case of Republicans punishing the gay guy and defending the straight guy?

Well, yes. But that's only a part of it. There is also political calculation at work here.

You see, Larry Craig is from Idaho. When Larry Craig vacates his Senate seat, his replacement will be selected by Idaho's Republican Governor, who will most likely choose another Republican to go to the Senate. If they pick someone that is well-liked in Idaho, they have a pretty good chance of keeping the seat in 2008.

David Vitter, however, is from Louisiana. If the Republicans were to run him out on rail, his replacement would be selected by Louisana's Governor, who is a Democrat. This would essentially give the Democrats an extra seat in the Senate, which they would never let happen.

It's just one more example of how our Congressional representatives only act on their moral outrage when it works for them politically.