Archive for August 23rd, 2007

14.jpg

Photographs of Hiroshima and Nagaski – this boy was less than 1/2 mile from the hypocenter (the surface position directly beneath the center of a nuclear explosion). Watch the video below with this photo in mind – and tell us how this is acceptable in the 21st Century. Also ask yourself – what would we do if this was Iranian television – or Chinese…or how about Russian – talking about doing this to us? NOW who has the WMD’s?

This is truly appalling –

“The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear ‘bunker busters’ in Iran in a preemptive strike”.

“As a nuclear veteran I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The bunker buster is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror . . . Using bunker busters in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter, will vaporize hundreds of thousands of tons of earth, water and rock and send this radioactive soup downwind to kill and sicken whole populations. Those immediately downwind will die quickly, in hours or days.” –

Stephen M. Osborne, a freelance writer living on Camano Island in the Pacific Northwest and an ‘Atomic Vet.’ (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll 1956)

Advertisements

Bush is in effect saying that Vietnam could have been won if only we’d stayed there longer — that winning would have only required a few tens of thousand more lives lost — other than his own, of course.

…….

When you hear the sound bites from George W. Bush’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars today in which he compares his botched war in Iraq to the Vietnam war, think about what he was doing while thousands of U.S. soldiers were wounded and killed in the jungles of Southeast Asia.

As is well known, Bush’s elite status entitled him to a cushy berth in a “champagne unit” of the Texas Air National Guard. Associates from that era remember young Bush as being preoccupied with doing drugs, driving drunk and chasing women. There are rumors he seriously damaged a fighter jet while taxiing it on a runway while hungover. And there is strong circumstantial evidence he was discharged less than honorably after failing to show up for a series of Pentagon-mandated drug tests.

With that in mind, here is Bush today, rewriting and politicizing the war he sat out:

Read the rest at the Pensito Review

From the WashingtonPost.com – Federal No-Bid Contracts On Rise

A recent congressional report estimated that federal spending on contracts awarded without “full and open” competition has tripled, to $207 billion, since 2000, with a $60 billion increase last year alone. The category includes deals in which officials take advantage of provisions allowing them to sidestep competition for speed and convenience and cases in which the government sharply limits the number of bidders or expands work under open-ended contracts.

Government auditors say the result is often higher prices for taxpayers and an undue reliance on a limited number of contractors.

Mark H. Rachesky, M.D. purchased 33.4% (over 40 Million) shares of Lions Gate stock one week prior to the scheduled opening of Michael Moore’s controversial film “Sicko” which happens to be distributed by Lions Gate and the Weinstein Co. (SEC filing can be found here). Interestingly, a pre-screening of the film was held on the same day in New Hampshire for over 600 people including doctors, health care lobbyists, nurses, political figures and pharmaceutical companies all from the health care industry.

…….

If Dr Rachesky purchased Lions Gate shares for controlling power is it safe to ask why? There are many debates and arguments as the the accuracy of Moore’s film. What interests me is if there were no truth and validity to the documentary why would someone go to so much trouble to make sure it is not a success and limit the amount theaters where the film can be seen? Sounds to me like this film has left the health care industry shaking in their boots and they don’t want us to know the truth.

Read the whole article at The Zetetic

“We represent three great nations. We each respect each other’s sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they’re wrong. I believe it’s in our interest to trade; I believe it’s in our interest to dialogue; I believe it’s in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.

“And I’m amused by some of the speculation, some of the old – you can call them political scare tactics. If you’ve been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn’t exist. That’s just the way some people operate. I’m here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can a stronger force for good.

“So I appreciate that question. I’m amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It’s quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about.”

Ummmm – he didn’t say “No.” Read the entire article here.

“Karl Rove calls himself Moby Dick. One speechwriter sees himself as St. Francis. Another sees him as Iago. All regard Bush as Abraham Lincoln. In Washington, reality is a myth.”

Read the article by Sidney Blumenthal at Salon.com

So…the Emperor not only has no clothes but no mirrors are allowed near him so HE can’t tell he’s naked!

By Peter Baker

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 22, 2007; Page A02

Not that they’re worried or anything. But the White House evidently leaves little to chance when it comes to protests within eyesight of the president. As in, it doesn’t want any.

A White House manual that came to light recently gives presidential advance staffers extensive instructions in the art of “deterring potential protestors” from President Bush’s public appearances around the country.

Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers. Those entering must be screened in case they are hiding secret signs. Any anti-Bush demonstrators who manage to get in anyway should be shouted down by “rally squads” stationed in strategic locations. And if that does not work, they should be thrown out.

But that does not mean the White House is against dissent — just so long as the president does not see it. In fact, the manual outlines a specific system for those who disagree with the president to voice their views. It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police “to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route.”

The “Presidential Advance Manual,” dated October 2002 with the stamp “Sensitive — Do Not Copy,” was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004. The techniques described have become familiar over the 6 1/2 years of Bush’s presidency, but the manual makes it clear how organized the anti-protest policy really is.

The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word “Bush” crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said “Regime Change Starts at Home,” while hers said “Love America, Hate Bush.” Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing.

The manual demonstrates “that the White House has a policy of excluding and/or attempting to squelch dissenting viewpoints from presidential events,” said ACLU lawyer Jonathan Miller. “Individuals should have the right to express their opinion to the president, even if it’s not a favorable one.”

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that he could not discuss the manual because it is an issue in two other lawsuits.

The manual offers advance staffers and volunteers who help set up presidential events guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be ” extremely supportive of the Administration,” it says. While the Secret Service screens audiences only for possible threats, the manual says, volunteers should examine people before they reach security checkpoints and look out for signs. Make sure to look for “folded cloth signs,” it advises.

To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create “rally squads” of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with “favorable messages.” Squads should be placed in strategic locations and “at least one squad should be ‘roaming’ throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems,” the manual says.

“These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators,” it says. “The rally squad’s task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site.”

Advance teams are advised not to worry if protesters are not visible to the president or cameras: “If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator’s effect.”

The manual adds in bold type: “Remember — avoid physical contact with demonstrators! Most often, the demonstrators want a physical confrontation. Do not fall into their trap!” And it suggests that advance staff should “decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone.”

The staff at the West Virginia event may have missed that line.

If you’d like to read the manual itself, it’s available as a PDF file.