May 25, 2004

This sounds vaguely familiar.....

Curt Anderson and the Associated Press are just breathles in anticipation of new terror attacks on the U.S. In fact....
U.S. officials have obtained new intelligence deemed highly credible indicating al-Qaida or other terrorists are in the United States and preparing to launch a major attack this summer, The Associated Press has learned.

Gee...where have I heard this before......let me see....was it back in 2002?..Something about Weapons of mass Destruction? Or maybe way back in 2001 when they said that 19 middle eastern men hijacked airplanes and then 5 showed up alive and well in Saudi Arabia.....

No that wasn't it. Maybe it was the time that they said that they had definitely killed Osama bin Laden. Or the time that they said Zarqawi had blown off a leg and gotten a prosthetic replacement? Oh...I must be confused, it was probably that time that they said that Iraq had tried to purchase aluminum rods. was probably that time when they said that they had discovered these WMD RV's out in the desert. Or was it that time that they said that an aspirin factory was really a WMD factory..

Man I just can't remember but it sounds SO familiar.

Aaron Russo is now audio blogging

Pretty nifty stuff. Can you imagine Bush or Kerry audio blogging?

What the hell would either of them say?

"Is this thing on?" (tap..tap..tap)

"I did not have torture with that woman, Lindy England.."

"I've always wanted to say that....hehe"

"What do you mean this thing is still recording?!!"

May 23, 2004

It keeps getting worse....

The New York Times reports:
"Pentagon Officials revealed Friday that the Army has undertaken criminal investiagions into the deaths of at least 32 Iraqis and 5 Afghanis held by U.S. forces since August 2002. That is eight more cases than the Pentagon publically reported two weeks ago. Eight of the deaths have already been determined by medical examiners to be possible homocides, involving acts committed before or during interrogation.

"Previous statements had not made clear that so many prisoners died in interrogation, rather than being shot during riots or escape attempts."

The worst part is that this story seems to be quickly disappearing. Searching google for words from the story (Title is:Tactics approved by Intel Officers) (it's in Saturday's Austin American Statesman) turns up one link. Clicking on the link won't produce the story. That's normal for some newsfeeds since they are constantly rotating stories with the same URL. However clicking on the cache in google won't produce the text either....

May 21, 2004

Hollings: Odd Behavior

Alot of controversy has surrounded Senator Hollings' latest comments about Israel's security (and Bush's intent to secure the Jewish bloc of voters) being a prime motivator for the Iraq war.

The ADL and several other, perpetual victims, have chimed in to say that Hollings' should apologize for his remarks. Hollings has remarkably held his ground in the face of such chiding. Commendable given how Trent Lott folded like a lawn chair in a stiff breeze, after making his own infamous remarks. That wasn't new for Lott. If there were any man more easily pressured into flinging his conservative "principles" out the window, I can't think of one.

What is curious about this latest controversy is that Hollings is obviously stating the truth. A truth that can be documented by the Congressional record. Check out the Graham amendment passed back in October of 2002.

The Graham amendement was the very first to tie a U.S. military action in Iraq to Israel's interests. It was an addeendum to Congress' original authorization for 87 Billion in mad money for our newest dictator (I know, I know, but Look up dictator in the dictionary).

The odd behavior to which I refer is that Senator Hollings voted for the bill.

The bill passed 95 to 2 with three abstentions. For the record, Kerry didn't vote. (Does he ever?) While Hollings' vote in this matter would tend to exhonerate him of "anti-Semitism" charges, it does seem to expose a gross hypocrisy on his part. Or maybe I'm just wierd that way.

A short summary of the bill with relevant text follows

On October 15th the Senate took up a slightly modified version of the amendment proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to the Iraq supplemental (SA 1806 to S. 1689 - see the October 3rd edition of the Round-Up for details of the original amendment). The amendment marks the first time Congress has formally linked the U.S. military effort in Iraq to Israel.

In its final form adopted by the Senate by a vote of 95 in favor, two opposed [Chafee (R-RI) and Bingaman (D-NM), and three not voting [Edwards (D-NC), Kerry (D-MA), and Lieberman (D-CT)], the amendment adds a Sense of Congress to the bill stipulating that "the removal of the Government of Saddam Hussein has enhanced the security of Israel and other United States allies." The amendment is as follows:

Sec. 3002

(a) Congress finds that--
(1) Israel is a strategic ally of the United States in the Middle East;
(2) Israel recognizes the benefits of a democratic form of government;
(3) the policies and activities of the Government of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime contributed to security concerns in the Middle East, especially for Israel;
(4) the Arab Liberation Front was established by Iraqi Baathists, and supported by Saddam Hussein;
(5) the Government of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime assisted the Arab Liberation Front in distributing grants to the families of suicide bombers;
(6) the Government of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime aided Abu Abass (sic), leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front, who was a mastermind of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, an Italian cruise ship, and is responsible for the death of an American tourist aboard that ship; and
(7) Saddam Hussein attacked Israel during the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War by launching 39 Scud missiles into that country and thereby causing multiple casualties.

(b) It is the sense of Congress that the removal of the Government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein enhanced the security of Israel and other United States allies.

May 16, 2004

Aaron Russo for President

I have a great feeling about Aaron Russo. I know that we libertarians are supposed to be rational and Spock-like, but I don't care. I loved Harry Browne. I covered him at the Anti-War convention back in 2000 for Free Republic when the place still had some promise (it has long since become like Democratic Underground and the French Revolution sans the Gillotine).

He was as good as anyone I ever saw at speaking and conveying the libertarian message. But I was already a believer. In some ways libertarianism is like a religion for me. Allowing others their freedom is a way of life. And sometimes only those of us who have long-since drunk the libertarian kool-aid actually get why it is so exciting to see a libertarian, who also gets it, speaking to a crowd of infadels. :)

I think Russo has a very unique chance to get in front of people the LP has never been able to approach. His media savvy and connections appear to have already brought him un-precedented exposure. But it isn't just media exposure that makes a potential Russo candidacy so exciting, it's his ability to come across as a sincere, credible candidate who wants his countrymen set free. Surprisingly so. Just check out excerpts from a pilot he produced back in 1996 called Mad As Hell, or his recent Fox interview (low speed |high speed) [Windows Media - right click and save].

Michael Badnarik is from here in Austin and I admire the man but I don't think he's got the same sort of after-convention potential(or before-convention for that matter) as Russo. I don't know much about Gary Nolan. I'm sure they're both fine candidates.

My endorsement, for what it's worth goes to Aaron Russo.

The State of the Union

by Rick Fisk | Special to
It used to be that the "State of the Union" meant an address given on the affairs of State by our President. It has now come to mean how many guards and Iraqi detainees were boffed by Lyndie England.

It's been a busy few months for our fearless leaders and their sycophants in the media. Abu Gharib has been at the forefront of our collective mind for the past week or so and the story has been treated, by both watchers and re-tellers, as expected: it's all about sex.

No big deal. The same people who were railing against the media for their portrayal of Clinton's misbehavior (actually perjury under oath) are talking about sex. Proponents of the current President are trying to defend him by making diminutive references to the "scandal", while those who oppose him, in general, try to make more out of the issue of sex than is warranted.

That is unfortunate, because what is being totally overlooked by the majority of participants is that several prisoners at Abu Gharib were reportedly beaten to death in the course of interrogations. One man was covered in ice and wrapped in plastic to conceal his injuries and then rushed off to the local Army medical unit to finish the cover-up. One would imagine death of detainees to be a far more sensational story. But do we hear about these allegations? Not really, we're busy talking about G.I. Ho and charging that the media is waging a campaign to oust Bush. The latter is a hilarious charge.

When Rush Limbaugh says that the photos we've seen merely represent what goes on at college campuses across the U.S., he's correct. But he and others who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to make such remarks until after he did do not want to comment on the alleged killings. I don't blame them. If I were loyal to this President, I'd much rather scapegoat a few low-life grunts for sexual perversions and charge media personalities with bias than deal with the issue of institutionalized murder.

It would be especially important to ignore the fact that this government has been holding a seventy-year old Afghanifarmer, and more than a few whom it claims to be "enemy combatants", including some who are American citizens, at Guantanamo, Cuba, without charges, for over two years.

Conveniently for these pundits, and this Administration, a new video has surfaced which is purported to show a formerly dead, formerly-peg-legged, terrorist behead a man who doesn't look even remotely like the man identified by authorities as Nick Berg. Which brings us to the reason that charges about a Bush-hating media are so hilarious.

It's nice for the government that the terrorists keep playing into its hands. And coming back to life after re-growing limbs. The beauty of being a government employee in this day and age is unfettered access to a completely unquestioning media (and populace for that matter). A media that never wants to hold government accountable for any of its serious transgressions.

When it was convenient for the government, the media reported how well the government had performed in its campaign against "terror." Al Zarqawi, the man now alleged to have killed Nick Berg, on camera, was reported to have been killed by coalition bombing raids. Before that, it was reported that he was injured seriously enough in 2002 to have required a prosthetic leg. The media gladly parroted the Pentagon's gloating in both prior instances, and today gladly parrots Administration claims that this man wielded the infamous dull knife.

It is no wonder that there are a gaggle of conspiracy theorists who see a peach-colored, silk robe and claim it to be a government-issued orange jump suit. What else are they to conclude? The government and its fifth column in the media consistently do whatever is necessary to keep the public from looking elsewhere for its news.

It's working. Five, white, Europeans, who speak Russian better than Arabic, are seen as Al Qaeda boogey men out to get your sister. And really, that's the state of the Union today:

Muslims are out to get your sister. If you don't have a sister, then it'll be your dog and your apple pie. Or Jews. Let's not forget that Jews are out to get your sister hooked on ecstasy and enslaved in a brothel somewhere in the Middle East.

That's what is important now. Never mind that America has become a police state, or that both Democrats and Republicans are trying to covertly and literally re-institute slavery in this country. It used to be that the "State of the Union" meant an address given on the affairs of State by our President. It has now come to mean how many guards and Iraqi detainees were boffed by Lyndie England.

Today, it's more important to set up straw men and windmills than it is to own up to our own failures. We got ourselves into this mess by allowing ourselves to be controlled. Whichever demon you oppose, it is likely that you still vote for Republicans or Democrats. And they continue to fail you. Like the sham being played out recently, the real issues will never come to light.

That's the real state of the Union. And you won't hear it from your media or politicians.