Turkey leader backs idea of attack on Kurdish rebels in Iraq

The prime minister said he would back Turkey's generals if they decide to retaliate for a suicide bombing in the capital by striking Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq.

read more digg story

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

read more | digg story

Two People I Wouldn't Want as President

On Liberty and Freedom:

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do," Rudolph Giuliani

"In reality, the more primitive a people is, the more it resents as an intolerable restraint any limitation of the liberty of the individual." Adolf Hitler

"A very large measure of individual liberty is not necessarily the sign of a high degree of civilisation. On the contrary, it is the limitation of this liberty, within the framework of an organisation which incorporates men of the same race, which is the real pointer to the degree of civilasation attained." Adolf Hitler

(Disclaimer: Now I hate to bring out the Hitler quotes but Rudy's quote reminded me too much of these Hitler quotes I found while researching gun control once. I am in no way trying to insinuate that Rudy will put us in concentration camps or anything of the like...but preemptive aggressive wars and oppressive laws are definitely possible.)

One last quote from Rudy:

"It's about time law enforcement got as organized as organized crime." Rudolph Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani: America's Mayor or American Fraud

Since 9/11 happened, Rudy Giuliani, more than any other politician has reaped the benefits, both politically and financially, but does he deserve it? If Rudy is running on 9/11 let's take a look at the record.

In a 20 May 2007 transcript from Hannity's America Giuliani states:

I actually didn't expect it at a Democratic debate. It was sort of the kind of thing that I remember like the Saudi prince saying, you know, the one who gave us $10 million, said American foreign policy had something to do with it, that had to be changed.

This 14 May 2007 article on Giuliani's business ties, it states:

In addition to its lobbying clients, Bracewell & Giuliani represents businesses in legal and financial matters...It also is working for Saudi Arabia. In March, the firm filed papers in a Texas court case on behalf of Saudi Arabia's oil ministry — taking sides with another international energy giant, Citgo, which is controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a rival of the Bush administration. One month after the 2001 terrorist attacks, then-Mayor Giuliani famously rejected a $10 million check from a Saudi prince to help terrorism victims. Giuliani spokeswoman Comella declined to comment on the firm's Saudi connection.

I'll at least give FOXNEWS credit for reporting it, even though they don't seem to be repeating it over and over like their lies about Ron Paul. So 10 million dollars to terrorist victims isn't more valuable than good PR, but money in his pocket from the Saudi Government is just fine? Hannity conveniently didn't mention this piece of information in his 20 May 2007 interview. I think it will be interesting to hear Giuliani's response to this charge of hypocrisy if he ever responds. So far TV News doesn't care about this, among other potential problems for Giuliani.

There has also been concerns about his potential role in ignoring problems with air quality. Here is a 14 May 2007 article that talks about the failure of government agencies to warn Ground Zero workers of toxic air quality:

Lee Clarke, director of health and safety for District Council 37, the city’s largest public employees’ union, said Mr. Giuliani used “very, very poor judgment” in rushing to reopen the financial district without watching out for the workers who cheered him at ground zero.

Ms. Clarke said that if those workers found themselves in a meeting with Mr. Giuliani today, “a number of them would be standing up, wanting a piece of Rudy.”

But it doesn't stop there, we all remember Rudy sporting those FDNY hats during the World Series, but how do the firefighters view Rudy? It appears they don't like him that much either.
Here is a 8 March 2007 article:

In the days after 9/11, Giuliani attended scores of funerals for police, fire and emergency workers killed in the attacks. He said he felt "very bad" that he couldn't get to all the funerals for firefighters.

The mood changed abruptly in November. Giuliani, citing safety concerns, cut back search and recovery efforts at Ground Zero before many firefighters' remains had been found. Firefighters protested and a number of them were arrested, further souring relations."

Probably most damning is this 8 March 2007 letter from the International Association of Firefighters:

Many people consider Rudy Giuliani "America's Mayor," and many of our members who don't yet know the real story, may also have a positive view of him. This letter is intended to make all of our members aware of the egregious acts Mayor Giuliani committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11, and our New York City union officers following that horrific day.

Rest assured, our exclusion of Mayor Giuliani is not about any particular contractual or policy issue or disagreement, nor is it based on his unfriendly relationship with our New York City affiliates prior to 9/11 — which we will document and explain in additional correspondence later on during the campaign. In fact, we invited several candidates with whom we have had substantial disagreement on policy issues because we feel very strongly that our members have the right to hear from all candidates, not just those who tow the IAFF line.

Regrettably, the situation with former Mayor Giuliani is very different. His actions post 9/11 rise to such an offensive and personal attack on our brother and sisterhood — and directly on our union — that the IAFF does not feel Rudy Giuliani deserves an audience of IAFF leaders and members at our own Presidential Forum.

The disrespect that he exhibited to our 343 fallen FDNY brothers, their families and our New York City IAFF leadership in the wake of that tragic day has not been forgiven or forgotten.

Finally much was made in this exchange with Texas Congressman Ron Paul:

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

Now I could understand if Rudy misunderstood Ron Paul's statement, but when he was asked after the debate why Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 he stated that they "hated our religious freedom and women's rights." This is Mayor of the city that suffered the largest terrorist attack on American soil. He once again has benefited both financially and politically from his performance on 9/11 and what is perceived to be excellent leadership. He more than anyone else brings up 9/11 at the hint of it, constantly talking about how "he lived through it." Taking that all into account you would figure that Giuliani would at least study up on his enemy. On Hannity's America he talked once again about Ron Paul's comments:

GIULIANI: And the one that really struck was that this had to do with our bombing Iraq in the period before they attacked us. And of course, this was the whole debate that's been going on — were Iraq and Al Qaeda tied with each other?

I mean, it seemed like it was so off the wall. And there are so many of these conspiracy theories about September 11, to hear one coming from a Republican was very, very disappointing. So I thought I just had to step in, nobody else seemed to be doing it. And I seemed to — I had to step in, somebody had to correct this.

HANNITY: It is hurtful to the families, though. You hear all of these 9/11 conspiracies. John Kerry even sort of regurgitated one of them recently. This — the families of...

GIULIANI: You just think of all of this stuff that has gone on about, was there a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Now we have this fellow saying that because we were bombing Iraq occasionally because of the problems with Saddam, that that — Al Qaeda all of a sudden came here and attacked us for that reason. Now that makes no sense. And maybe it is just to say something for the purpose of saying something.

This is too important a subject. And one of the points that I am trying to make in this campaign for president is, we need a clear-headed, realistic President.

Yes Rudy, we do need a clear-headed, realistic President. You have had plenty of time to figure out why the terrorists kill us, yet you spew ignorant garbage. Here are some links to educate you:

Brian Jenkins Rand, statement to the 9/11 commission.

Abraham D. Sofaer Hoover Institution Statement to 9/11 Commission

9/11 Commission Staff Statement

Osama Bin Ladin interview by Peter Arnett

John Miller of ABC's May 1998 interview with Bin Laden.

Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair May, 9th 2003

Bin Laden speech of October 2004

Bin Laden Fatwa 1996

Bin Laden Fatwa 1998

America's Mayor or American Fraud? You Decide.

Giuliani Spins, Calls Ron Paul's Debate Statement a "Conspiracy Theory"

And of course, this was the whole debate that's been going on — were Iraq and Al Qaeda tied with each other? I mean, it seemed like it was so off the wall. And there are so many of these conspiracy theories about September 11, to hear one coming from a Republican was very, very disappointing...I had to step in, somebody had to correct this.



read more | digg story

Giuliani has business ties to FOXNEWS, NY Post, and the Saudi Royal Family

Giuliani has been getting positive press on FOXNEWS and the NY Post after his factually incorrect response of Texas Congressman and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Shouldn't both media outlets have to disclose this relationship when they run stories? Last night Giuliani and Hannity called Ron's statement a crazy "conspiracy theory."

read more digg story

Open Letter to Sean Hannity

Dear Sean,

Sunday night on Hannity's America you called Ron Paul's statement a crazy "conspiracy theory" when he said in the debates that US Foreign Policy contributed toward western hatred and provided a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. That 9/11 was "blowback" for US intervention in the Middle East. What is it that compels you to deny reality? Supporters of Ron Paul will help you come to grips. I proprose we call into your show and try to give you the facts. While listening we will write down the name of every sponsor. We will boycott your sponsors and send them emails informing them of this. The boycott will last until you admit the truth and end your slander. As a member of the media you have been doing your listeners a great disservice. You are now doing your sponsors a great disservice due to your ignorance of history. It should also be reminded that people who possess computer literacy usually come from coveted demographics. I trust you will do the right thing. Here is some info to help you.

In the debate the following exchange occured:

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Now here are some people that have heard this Idea:

There are a lot of things that are different now [that the U.S. occupies Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed – but it's huge – is that ... we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda.

"In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

"I don't want to speak in messianic terms. It's not going to change things overnight, but it's a huge improvement." – Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair May, 9th 2003

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations.

"This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. ...

"So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

Bin Laden speech of October 2004

"Al Qaeda has indicated specific political grievances-the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia, the oppression of the Palestinians, the suffering of Iraqi civilians under UN sanctions, or now, an American-led war-but such grievances are primarily used to recruit adherents to its cause."

Brian Jenkins Rand, statement to the 9/11 commission.

On June 26, 1996, car bombs killed 19 American servicemen in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and injured over two hundred. The US suspected bin Laden and Al Qaeda. All we did, however, was open a criminal investigation that the Saudis did not allow the FBI to pursue on Saudi soil. Bin Laden was not intimidated by the thought of FBI investigators sitting in Saudi hotels. On October 12, he issued a "Declaration of War" against the US: "It is the duty now on every tribe in the Arabian peninsula to fight jihad and cleanse the land from these Crusader occupiers. Their wealth is booty to those who kill them."

"In February 1998, bin Laden put his war into the form of a religious order -- a fatwa -- declaring that "the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty for each and every Muslim . . . ." He had no difficulty justifying the deaths of civilians. After all, he argued, the Judeo-Christians had dropped atom bombs on civilian populations, had stood by while Christian Serbs massacred and raped Muslims in Bosnia, had killed Muslims ruthlessly in Chechnya and other places, and had imposed sanctions on Iraq that even the UN said had killed 600,000 Iraqi children."

Abraham D. Sofaer Hoover Institution Statement to 9/11 Commission

By 1992 Bin Ladin was focused on attacking the United States. He argued that other extremists, aimed at local rulers or Israel, had not gone far enough; they had not attacked what he called "the head of the snake," the United States. He charged that the United States, in addition to backing Israel, kept in power repressive Arab regimes not true to Islam. He also excoriated the continued presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War as a defilement of the holy Muslim land.

9/11 Commission Staff Statement

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?

BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. They should have been considerate that the qibla (Mecca) of the Muslims upheaves the emotion of the entire Muslim World. Due to its subordination to the Jews the arrogance and haughtiness of the US regime has reached, to the extent that they occupied the qibla of the Muslims (Arabia) who are more than a billion in the world today. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries. As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of The Two Holy Places. The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country. Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims. A reaction might take place as a result of US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars. We ask that may God release them.

Osama Bin Ladin interview by Peter Arnett

Miller: What is the meaning of your call for Muslims to take arms against America in particular, and what is the message that you wish to send to the West in general?

Bin Laden: The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel. ...

Miller: What message do you have for the European governments and the West in general?

Bin Laden: Praise be Allah and prayers and peace upon Mohammed. With respect to the Western governments that participated in the attack on the land of the two Holy Mosques regarding it as ownerless, and in the siege against the Muslim people of Iraq, we have nothing new to add to the previous message. What prompted us to address the American government in particular is the fact that it is on the head of the Western and the crusading forces in their fight against Islam and against Muslims. The two explosions that took place in Riyadh and in Khobar recently were but a clear and powerful signal to the governments of the countries which willingly participated in the aggression against our countries and our lives and our sacrosanct symbols. It might be beneficial to mention that some of those countries have begun to move towards independence from the American government with respect to the enmity that it continues to show towards the Muslim people. We only hope that they will continue to move in that direction, away from the oppressive forces that are fighting against our countries. We however, differentiate between the western government and the people of the West. If the people have elected those governments in the latest elections, it is because they have fallen prey to the Western media which portray things contrary to what they really are. And while the slogans raised by those regimes call for humanity, justice, and peace, the behavior of their governments is completely the opposite. It is not enough for their people to show pain when they see our children being killed in Israeli raids launched by American planes, nor does this serve the purpose. What they ought to do is change their governments which attack our countries. The hostility that America continues to express against the Muslim people has given rise to feelings of animosity on the part of Muslims against America and against the West in general. Those feelings of animosity have produced a change in the behavior of some crushed and subdued groups who, instead of fighting the Americans inside the Muslim countries, went on to fight them inside the United States of America itself.

Miller: Mr. bin Laden, you have issued a fatwah calling on Muslims to kill Americans where they can, when they can. Is that directed at all Americans, just the American military, just the Americans in Saudi Arabia?

Bin Laden: Allah has ordered us to glorify the truth and to defend Muslim land, especially the Arab peninsula ... against the unbelievers. After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in particular. ... The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, American has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.

John Miller of ABC's May 1998 interview with Bin Laden.

This is just the tip of the iceberg Sean, there are many more instances. I hope you and your "research" department can clear up this error.

Paul Bronstein
spinfilter.blogspot.com

Amnesty for All?

To people who still support Bush, the "viable" Republican contenders running and not yet running, and the Republicans in Congress:

Apologize for Rockefellers and you get Rockefeller Republican policy. The Libertarians and Paleoconservatives are unreasonable? What did you think we have been complaining about? This President and many in Congress are not Conservatives, they have a track record on this and I hear is people call me liberal for criticizing them. The call us "losertarians", well your support for these people have caused us all to lose today. Keep it up and it will just get worse. All of you need to read Conservative writing and quotes from the early '90s because the current Republican talking points are completely different nowadays if you haven't noticed. See what people like Sean Hannity said about Kosovo. Savage said Clinton attacked to establish an oil pipeline. We complained about policing the world. We said we are just creating unnceccessary threats. We said you don't just go in with the military you have, you go in with the military necessary to win. You don't fight unnecessary wars but you don't fight on the cheap either. Fiscal matters had the upmost importance, now we have record debt. We wanted to eliminate departments and shrink government, it is the largest it has ever been. The Department of Education has doubled in size and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT tests your children and forces your local schools to conform to THEIR STANDARDS. These are the consequences of centralization. The "viable" candidates support the Assault Weapons ban. The Republican Congress once had a surplus, not now. What are you guys making excuses for? I know you were all against amnesty, but when you have politicians that don't vote conservatively on the issues and "compromise" on a consistent basis, what is to be expected?

What do you do when their family members get amnesty too? What about all the people that will flood into the US now that passage is near? Bought and paid for in your wages and taxes. Sold to Congress with campaign funds from big donors with future "employment" opportunities. I am sure they are grateful for your generosity. Do you guys remember all the arm twisting and loosening of the rules for CAFTA? We will have a similar vote in the house. They need to punch this in before the election and they will. Who are you going to vote for, all the candidates that are deemed "viable" by the MSM and Talk Radio are for amnesty? The moderate Senator from Tennessee turned conservative savior, Fred Thompson, is an amnesty supporter. This is the kind of scum we are going to make the President? And they call Ron Paul supporters "kooks"? Get real, there is no way in hell I would ever support somebody who ignores the Constitution and such a fundamental Conservative position. How do you justify that?

What Global Caliphate?

How this Global Caliphate is going to happen? Nobody who has ever advocated that position has given me a plausible strategy of how this will come about.

Now the AEI which posesses much influence over our current foreign policy are students of Machiavelli. They have written about him with great admiration. They handed this book out to members of Congress. Machiavelli according to Michael Ledeen, in his book Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, proscribed a leader that is at war, a leader that may have to enter into evil to accomplish one's means. One that uses religion to persuade troops to give their life for the state. This is the AEI's model leader.

Now you don't have to be Machiavelli, you don't have to be Von Clausewitz, you don't have to be Sun Tzu to tell you that a ragtag group of terrorists that have to run their organization from exile, CANNOT successfully take one state, let alone the WORLD. The second they take one state they become exposed. A head of state cannot foment revolution and then rule from exile. Lenin achieved the converse but ruling from exile is untenable. So please tell me how this global caliphate story is not just some fairy tale to scare Christians.

Big GOVERNMENT Republican: Well, even if it isn't possible they believe it and that is the primary reason 9/11 happened.

Well if they were ever to establish this Caliphate they need recruits again, intervention is the primary justification for recruitment. Infidels on Arab land, not infidels existing. Imperial wars on foreign lands usually end up in political quagmires, especially ones with completely different societies, recruiting always takes a hit once the conflict leaves home. Also with Imperial wars, the public becomes desensitized to the harsh realities of war, of conflict, of hostile regime change since these scenes are playing out far away from the "Homeland".

In all cases of war the enemy is often caricatured as some kind of animal. That is propaganda and it happens on both sides and unfortunately many well meaning citizens take the bait. Emotion takes precedent over fact, the ability to objectively assess the situation becomes almost impossible, and positions once considered absurd become attractive through suggestion, many time involving half truths and slogans. Leaders on both sides use this tactic and exploit the vulnerabilities of the public, they do not believe these slogans. Perpetual Revolution is not an attractive option to sober people, just ideologues and their sheep.

The Caliphate is a utopian goal and recruiting jihadists is the means. Now how do we cut off the means? You can attempt to broaden the conflict and engulf the whole region with the utopian idea of "democracy spreading" or you can isolate them, cut off their recruiting, and defeat them. That cannot be accomplished through "democracy spreading". The punishment for supporting Al Qaeda should be clear. This is not so, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are bigger supporters than Iran or Iraq ever were, yet Iraq has been toppled and Iran is next. Al Qaeda should be made an example, not given a respite. It should be isolated, not unified with the rest of the Muslim world. Like I said, once we attack Iran we unite the Islamic World, the opportunity of exploiting Sunni-Shiite differences disappears and the difference between moderate and extremists blurs slightly more. Also big players like Russia and China, who once again holds much of our debt, get involved and there arises an economic front that will open up against us. Now does it make sense to do that? How is perpetual war the answer? How is it possible? Either they are following Machiavelli's example and lying about their intentions or these ideologues actually believe their own nonsense, but I believe the answer is somewhere in between.

Traditional globalists are even up in arms because the Bush Administration is playing russian roulette with our treasury, our security, and our well being as a superpower. This is dangerous and the American People have been greatly let down by the media, both MSM and the Talk Radio right. Our extremely corrupt politicians are going off the deep end, when we open up the final front against Iran and take on the Shiites, our open borders will prove useful to them. Going into Iran opens up a geopolitical can of worms that we can't comprehend. We still have time to wake up before its too late, but we are running out of chances and a status quo vote in 08 will most definitely cross the rubicon. There really is not much parity in any of the "viable" candidates. That should cause concern.

If this seems all over the place to some that is because policy and its consequences do not happen in a vacuum. I know people like things broken down to talking points and simple concepts, which makes them more susceptible to manipulation, but things like foreign policy are much more complex.

Hannity scolded Ron Paul for not wanting to Police the World, BUT...

"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?"- Hannity, March 24, 1999



read more | digg story

FOXNEWS scared of Ron Paul???

Just follow these simple text message instructions to vote on who won the Republican Debate. I am pretty sure FOXNEWS knows the "internets" exist but for some unforeseen reason they decide not to have a poll that way.

Giuliani attacks Ron Paul when he states the fact of why they attacked us, what their recruiting slogan is. Playing the 9/11 card? Waving the bloody shirt? Well those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. First you lie about air quality at ground zero, then you attack Ron Paul when he says the truth to your face. After the the debate you say they hate us for our freedom? Where do you get that idea from Rudy...FOXNEWS?

Now FOXNEWS is already talking about slimming the field in future debates. Propaganda anyone?

Ron Paul is winning the prehistoric phone poll. Carl Cameron looks like a deer in headlights...probably wasn't this shaken up since they had him stop this investigation.

Duncan Hunter says that the terrorists should love us because we attacked Iraq and liberated Kuwait. Of course!!! We liberated Kuwait, all the despots that the terrorists love signed off on it, so all is well. The Saudis told Bin Laden to take a hike and he declared war on us. Guess Duncan didn't read the Fatwa either.

Beautiful, Ron Paul gives Hannity a history lesson. Ron Paul won on enemy territory. Too bad FOXNEWS doesn't have the fact checking section, it could get messy. You want to talk about 9/11 Rudy, lets talk, you want to pontificate about foreign policy, lets debate the facts. Just please don't send Bernie's goons after us.

Digg it up.

I already posted a short piece with links on why the terrorists are killing us a while back.

Rice, Putin Hold Tense Moscow Talks

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday on a visit aimed at allaying Russian complaints of American interference in both the military and political spheres.



read more | digg story

Switzerland investigating BAE over money laundering: report

"Relating to BAE Systems, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland confirms having opened its own investigation into possible money laundering," the federal prosecutor's office in Bern told The Guardian newspaper.



read more | digg story

MSM Spin: Reuters Makes Big Omission on Iran-US Timeline

Reuters omits important info in their Iran timeline. Please add any other omissions in the comments.

Read the Reuters Article.

From Article:

Following is a chronology of major events in U.S.-Iranian relations.

1953 - CIA helps orchestrate the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, restoring Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, to power.

1979 - Revolt forces U.S.-backed Shah to flee and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returns from exile and proclaims himself supreme religious guide. Fundamentalist students demanding Washington hand over the Shah for trial seize the U.S. Embassy in Tehran Nov. 4, hold its staff hostage for 444 days

1980 - The United States cuts ties with Tehran, seizes Iranian assets and bans most trade with Iran. Covert U.S. rescue attempt ordered by President Jimmy Carter fails when helicopter crashes in sandstorm, eight U.S. servicemen killed. The Shah dies in Egypt.

1981 - Iran releases U.S. hostages minutes after Carter steps down and Ronald Reagan is inaugurated as U.S. president.

1986 - Reagan reveals secret arms deal with Tehran in violation of U.S. arms embargo. Money from the sales was secretly passed to Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua.

1988 - U.S. warship Vincennes mistakenly shoots down an Iranian passenger plane over the Gulf, killing all 290 aboard.

1995 - President Bill Clinton issues executive orders preventing U.S. companies from investing in Iranian oil and gas and from trading with Iran. U.S. accuses Iran of supporting terrorism and seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges.

2002 - President George W. Bush declares Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil." Russia begins construction of Basher nuclear reactor, Iran's first, and U.S. accuses Tehran of operating a secret nuclear weapons program.

2006 - In a major policy shift, Washington says it is willing to join multilateral talks with Iran if Tehran verifiably suspends its nuclear enrichment program. U.N. Security Council passes resolution that imposes trade sanctions on Iran's sensitive nuclear materials and freezes assets of Iranian individuals and companies associated with the program. Iran's ambassador to the United Nations rejects the resolution as without legal basis.

2007 - U.N. Security Council passes resolution with new financial and arms sanctions on Iran after Tehran refuses to suspend its atomic program.

This is what they missed. Rawstory did a decent piece on this. Very damaging if you want an invasion or attack in the name of the "Global War on Terror".

Bobby Kennedy: America's first JFK assassination conspiracy theorist

Bobby's phone call to Langley on the afternoon of Nov. 22 was a stunning outburst. Getting a ranking official on the phone -- whose identity is still unknown -- Kennedy confronted him in a voice vibrating with fury and pain. "Did your outfit have anything to do with this horror?" Kennedy erupted.



read more | digg story

Terrorism suspects often seem far from al-Qaeda's 'A' team

When it came to waging holy war, Nuradin Abdi's spirit was willing, according to federal charges filed against him in 2004. But his flesh, all 250-plus pounds of it, was another matter.



read more | digg story

FBI says domestic extremists big threat

The bureau also has spent millions of dollars cultivating paid informants. But in some cases the FBI has been accused of not vetting its sources or of allowing them to pressure suspects into committing illegal acts or even entrapping them.



read more | digg story

Israeli Arab ex-MP denies spy charges

Source ::: AFP

JERUSALEM • Israeli Arab former MP Azmi Bishara denied charges of spying for Lebanon's Hezbollah militia but acknowledged criticising its rocketing of Arab villages in Israel, in an interview published yesterday.

"I am not a spy," Bishara said, according to excerpts of the interview in the mass-selling Yediot Aharonot.

Israeli authorities suspect Bishara, who resigned his seat in parliament while abroad on April 22, of advising Hezbollah and directing its rocket fire during its war with Israel last summer in return for money.

In the excerpts of the interview, the full text of which is due to be published tomorrow, he repeated his denial of the charges.

"I did not pass secrets to Hezbollah, I simply told a friend on the telephone that you could understand that there are attacks against Haifa, but why for devil's sake fire on Arab villages," he said.

Pastor pleads guilty to 15 counts of sexual exploitation of children

Please Digg this up. "Men of the cloth" that do these things deserve to be made famous.A former Camden pastor pleaded guilty earlier this week to 15 counts of sexual exploitation of children and was sentenced to five years in prison.



read more | digg story

Sarkozy in, French delay 10 Billion Dollar Iranian Investment

PARIS: The Chief Executive of France's Total said a final decision on whether to proceed with a $10 billion natural gas project in Iran was being delayed by diplomatic problems and cost increases.

Tehran said last month it hoped for a decision within three or four months, but politicians in the United States, which accuses Iran of seeking atomic weapons, have threatened sanctions if Total or other European oil firms participate in such projects.

Read this story

Fort Dix: FBI Informant Played Big Part in Planning Attack

He railed against the United States, helped scout out military installations for attack, offered to introduce his comrades to an arms dealer and gave them a list of weapons he could procure, including machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. These were not the actions of a terrorist, but of a paid FBI informant who helped bring down...

read more digg story

Bush signs National Security Directive in Case of Big "Terrorist" Attack

I do not like the looks of this. Everyone needs to read this, straight from the White House.

read more | digg story

U.S.: Iran helping some Sunni insurgents

I don't know if I buy this. Looks like a convienant way to connect Iran and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda would love to see the America invade the Shiites: BAGHDAD - A U.S. military spokesman said Wednesday that Shiite-dominated Iran is providing support to some Sunni insurgents fighting American forces in Iraq.

read more | digg story

Agent says mom tipped off cop son, still on force

An FBI agent testifying in federal court Wednesday said the mother of the ringleader of a group of crooked Englewood police officers was suspected of trying to warn her son that he was under investigation while she worked in the Chicago police internal affairs division.

read more | digg story

Officer facing drug charges ordered held

BOSTON - A Boston police officer facing drug and extortion charges admitted after his arrest last week that he helped a drug dealer collect a drug debt on several occasions while in uniform, an FBI agent testified.

read more digg story

Voice expert doubts caller was key witness in Poindexter case

OMAHA, Neb. - A voice expert repeated his doubts that a key witness in a 1971 murder trial of two black radical activists placed the fatal 911 call he says he did. The 911 tape was not played at the 1971 trial. Obtained after the trial, a 1970 memo between Omaha police and the FBI said the tape could affect the prosecution's case.

read more digg story

Venezuela Seizes Last Private Oil Fields

President Hugo Chavez's government took over Venezuela's last privately run oil fields Tuesday, intensifying a power struggle with international companies over the world's largest known single petroleum deposit.

read more digg story

Venezuela criticizes DEA as 'new cartel'

Justice Minister Pedro Carreno said the South American nation suspended cooperation with the agency in 2005 after determining that "they were moving a large amount of drugs." President Hugo Chavez at the time also accused the DEA of spying.

read more digg story

Venezuela's President Declares Country will Quit the World Bank and the IMF

"We are going to withdraw before they go and rob us," he said in a TV broadcast. Venezuela has paid off all its debts so the move is largely symbolic.

read more digg story

US and Saudis Sponsoring Covert Action Against Iran

The governments of Saudi Arabia and the United States are working with other states in the Middle East region to sponsor covert action against Iran, according to a report in this month's edition of The Atlantic. The report also suggests that covert attacks may occur against Iran's oil sector.

read more digg story

An Interactive Map of Global Investment in Iran.

Interactive web site you can check by A) Country Listing B) Global Map or C) Company Listing. Just please keep in mind this is from the same people that brought you the Iraq War. It is very interesting info though.

read more digg story

Bush Won't Give up Military Option on Iran Says Rice

U.S. President George W. Bush will keep a military option on the table as he seeks a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran over its nuclear plans, Condi Rice said.

read more digg story

U.S. Plans to Attack Iran from US base in Kyrgyztan Denied

On May 3 Marie Yovanovitch, U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, denied reports that the Manas base near Bishkek is being used to store nuclear weapons for a possible attack on Iran. Yovanovitch commented on the “ridiculous” nature of these allegations, which suggested that the U.S. military could use low-yield nuclear weapons to attack Iranian nuclear...

Read Story Here.

Digg Link.

Those Questioned in the Hazleton Shooting are not Illegal Aliens

Looks like this won't start up the illegal immigration debate: Ferdinand said none of those involved in Wednesday’s shooting are believed to be illegal immigrants. Yet a small city with historically little to no crime still has to deal with an increase in not only crime but violent crime. The people of Hazleton are fed up and rightly so.

Read the story here.

Putin Is Said to Compare U.S. Policies to Third Reich

If we continue to police the world, the opposition is not just going to be rag tag "terrorist" groups and third world nations, it is going to be Russia and China. Both have invested in Iran. We would be wise to consider that when we remind ourselves of how much of our debt China has bought up. Who thinks they might start dumping dollars if we mess with Iran. Not only that we will face a new front in "terrorism" when Shiite groups set their sights on the US. This is what I believe Putin's words are all about. He is telling the US to not to bomb their investment. We go into Iran and we may just start WW III on military and economic fronts with a heightened state of terrorism. Time for the Neocons and their sheep to wake up to these potential consequences.

Read the story here.

Shooting in Hazleton Pennsylvania

Details are sketchy but if the shooters turn out to be illegal aliens, this will heat up the illegal immigration debate:

Shots rang out on a street in Hazleton Wednesday afternoon. When it was over, three people were hurt and several men were in police custody. The shooting comes one year, almost to the day, of a deadly shooting just yards away.

read more | digg story

Ron Paul and the DC Madam

ABC "News", owned by Disney, who owns a 37.5% interest of A&E Networks, which owns the History Channel, is where many Americans learn their perception of history. First ABC whitewashes the whole DC Madam story when people with sensitive national secrets may have been running around with prostitutes. The use of prostitutes is a classic espionage and blackmail tactic. Those people should have their clearances pulled and be fired and ABC could have done this country a service but they covered it up yet again. Brian Ross is a disgrace to his country. Now ABC attempts to lie about Ron Paul's support. The comments are clear. The very reason the internet is exploding with support is because we cannot turn on our television and ever even hear our candidate's name unless it is mentioned in a list. We have to go to youtube, we have to go to myspace, we have to go to digg. We want coverage, but more than anything else we don't want the MSM to lie about our existence. The MSM is trying to pretend Ron Paul doesn't exist and that is expected, but when they try to pretend we don't exist, they crossed the line. We are not spam, we are American citizens that do not like the direction this country is going in and want real change and we find garbage that ABC calls "reporting the news" as nothing more than canned bullshit.

Hey ABC, Ron Paul supporters exist and so do the Washington Bureaucrats who may be compromising National Security that you are covering up for!!!

Let ABC know what you think of them.

Adviser to Duncan Hunter attacks Ron Paul and his Supporters

John Hawkins, the founder of RightWingNews and an adviser to Duncan Hunter: "Ron Paul’s people spam these polls,” says Hawkins. “We’re actually appealing to conservatives and slowly rising in those polls across the board. Paul’s our Dennis Kucinich. He’s not a conservative. He’s a libertarian. He’s a kook, and his supporters are pretty obnoxious.”

read more | digg story

From the Vault: Unconstitutional Warrantless Wiretapping

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Since the fourth amendment explicitly calls for all searches and seizures of American citizens to have judicial oversight, what happens in cases where time is of the essence and seconds count? Are we supposed to wait for a judge to approve a warrant? Absolutely not, the 1978 FISA law sets up a provision for just this purpose where warrants can be attained retroactively within 72 hours of initial surveillance. This ensures that both security and constitutionality can be protected. It worked fine for almost thirty years. Which brings the question, why was the fourth amendment and FISA law ignored by this administration?

"Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence."

Alberto Gonzales, December 19, 2005

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

Now wait one second, Mr. Gonzales. The authorization makes no mention of these powers. It seems rather contradictory that an administration that appoints “strict constructionists” is making up laws through a very, very loose interpretation of the authorization of force. He then went on to say in the same briefing:

"This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."

Excuse me Mr. Gonzales, but if congress gave you those powers in the authorization of force, which makes no mention of those powers, and you had previous discussions with congress on changing the FISA law, which you were told that it probably wouldn’t pass through congress, how can you possibly say that congress gave you those powers in the authorization? That doesn’t make sense. Well, let’s ask Mr. Bush why he has to circumvent the law:

"…the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do. And so that's why I made the decision I made. And you know, "circumventing" is a loaded word, and I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right."

George W. Bush, January 26, 2006

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060126.html

Okay, “circumventing the law” may be the wrong choice of words, how about BREAKING THE LAW? And that apparent “28 year limit” on laws that you use as your argument is a new one. I will be sure to use it next April when I am supposed to send in my tax return. I will simply write the IRS a letter stating that the 16th amendment is 90+ years old, this is 2007. It’s a whole different world, thus my payment is not necessary. I feel the constitution is on my side.

New Campaign Tactics

Ron Paul...WOW...he has the same first name as Ron Reagan. You should definitely vote him for President based on this. I think this completely makes him electable.

I know it's shallow but I already tried explaining what conservative policy is and has historically been to a lot of fellow Republicans and they just aimlessly stare at me, shaking in fear that Muslims will be under their bed when we leave Iraq, especially when they have absolutely no clue why those Muslims hate us in the first place.

Somebody told them freedom was the reason why they hated us, so being the tough guys that they were they decided to show the terrorists we mean business and just disregard the Bill of Rights altogether, they told me I was letting the terrorists win because I dissented, and that I can't have the Bill of Rights if I'm dead, which is unfortunate because I apparently can't have the Bill of Rights when I'm alive either.

Then they told me that the reason the Muslims hate us is because they have lived under dictatorships and Democracy Spreading is the answer. I pointed out that while not a great system, our next unfortunate target, Iran did have eight candidates in their last election. They called the elections shams. I then remembered that they did have a despotic ruler and he was overthrown by the Islamic Fundamentalists, so there may be some truth to this. I then remembered how he came to power and they told me I hate America.

They then explained that at some level of the Iranian Military there was some kind of intelligence report that said they cooperated with the insurgents responsible for a certain percentage of the combat deaths. I asked them when we were going to attack the Saudi Royal Family as well. They said that I didn't have my facts straight.

A somewhat famous author named Dinesh D'Souza told me the reason the Muslims hate us is because of MTV, Hollywood, and our vile media. I can't see how he believed that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon symbolized our music and movies. I always found the Pentagon to symbolize our Military Policy and the Twin Towers to symbolize the way we do commerce but I guess I am just being a conspiracy theorist. He then cited three word phrases from Bin Laden's Fatwa. I then read Bin Laden's Fatwa.

Then a few of them told me that the Muslims wanted a holy war. Because 4,000 years after the earth was created Jesus arrived first and thus the Muslims hate being second place and wrong. I shook my head.

Finally, the other reason I used such a shallow tactic is that many of those same Republicans have been using, almost exclusively, looks as a justification for their candidate, usually Romney and Fred Thompson (CFR, AEI, China Commission). So I hope my attempt at benchmarking from other more popular campaigns will work and gain candidate Paul more support.