Terrorists deal a blow to the G8 Summit
Just as world leaders gathering at the G8 Summit began discussing solutions to the crises of world poverty, AIDS in Africa and global warming, the first of four bombs went off yesterday in London. Naturally, in the wake of such a horrific event, Prime Minister Blair was forced to withdraw from the conference and reassure the people of the UK. So in effect, the terrorists executed a two-pronged attack. Not only did they take the lives of innocent London commuters, but they also interrupted a conference intended to address a number of the most pressing global issues today. Now, though the summit will go on, the mood, if not the agenda, has completely shifted. According to the Washington Post, after word of the bombings arrived in Scotland, "The summit shifted from a discussion of the causes of poverty and global warming to finding those responsible for an attack that resembled the 2004 bombings of four rush-hour commuter trains in Madrid.." In the US, attacks such as the one that shook London hit especially close to home, and we all sympathize with our British allies. But for the sake of the thousands dying everyday in Africa and other severely impoverished areas all over the world, I hope that the work of the G8 summit is not diminished.
Posted by Nicole Brown, RTV Intern
Posted by Nicole Brown, RTV Intern
posted by Anonymous at 12:03 PM
27 Comments:
How many Comic Reliefs and Live 8's do Americans need before we realize that what Africa needs isn't money but limited government.
www.bureaucrash.com
Remember this one?
Soto hasn't forgotten:
Lastly, as Tony Blair oversees the carnage and anger in his country, he may want to ask his good buddy George W. Bush why his administration crippled Blair's domestic anti-terror efforts to track down and stop Al Qaeda cells inside Great Britain by exposing a known Al Qaeda asset at a time when the Brits were very close to nailing a ring of Al Qaeda cells inside the country? With today's tragedy in front of them, don't you think that British intelligence would have wanted to finish their work last fall in smashing London's Al Qaeda cells before the Bush Administration blew a covert operation just so Bush could be reelected?
More info on that blowing of that operative:
On 2 August, the Bush administration blew the cover of double agent Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. A day earlier, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge had announced a new alert against an Al Qaeda plan to attack financial institutions in New York and Washington. When the New York Times pressed certain administration officials for more information, they disclosed to the newspaper that the information regarding the Al Qaeda plot had come from a recently arrested man in Pakistan named "Khan." The New York Times published his name on Monday. The later editions spelt out the full name.
Prof. Juan Cole of the University of Michigan's analysis is more daring, "The announcement of Khan's name forced the British to arrest 12 members of an al-Qaeda cell prematurely, before they had finished gathering the necessary evidence against them via Khan. Apparently they feared that the cell members would scatter as soon as they saw that Khan had been compromised. (They would have known he was a double agent, since they got emails from him Sunday and Monday!) One of the 12 has already had to be released for lack of evidence, a further fallout of the Bush SNAFU (situation normal all fouled up). It would be interesting to know if other cell members managed to flee. Why in the world would Bush administration officials out a double agent working for Pakistan and the US against Al-Qaeda?
The adminsitration's ineptness has repercussions.
through the looking glass
by kid oakland [Subscribe]
Fri Jul 8th, 2005 at 13:40:04 PDT
(Another KO special from the diaries -- kos)
In times like these, it's important to keep one salient fact on the table at all times:
The ambitious, inflexible, small-minded prigs who currently run the United States government are wrong. They are:
wrong about Iraq
wrong about terror
wrong about what makes us safe
and they are wrong about what makes us strong
It is no surprise, however, that in the wake of the recent tragedy in London, that the GOP and the nattering, blathering nabobs who dominate our airwaves will tell us....with a straight face no less, and in the name of "spreading Democracy"...that we who disagree with them should simply shut up.
Interesting that.
I'm not going to shut up, and neither should you.
Diaries :: kid oakland's diary :: ::
First off, as a city dweller and a public transit user, my heart goes out to London and its citizens. All of us who ride the rails in big cities around the world are thinking of you and your loss right now.
Second, I would like acknowledge how much my analysis owes to a good friend of mine here....awol...whose linked comment dovetails with so much of what I am about to say, and whose words have sharpened and honed my own....on with the essay:
.
.
.
I wrote last summer that only with the defeat of George Bush would we as a nation get a chance to sort through what happened to all of us and to our world on September 11th, 2001. Despite our best efforts, that did not happen.
We did not get a chance, without the Bush Administration defensively hiding, obfuscating and lying about its own actions, to sift through the events leading up to and following 9/11 and draw our own conclusions in the sober light of day. At the same time, over the course of the 2004 campaign we were subjected to the appropriation of the events of 9/11 for political purposes. We know this is true.
The GOP has made a political linkage of our national tragedy to their political party.
Think about that for a second. 9/11 happened to all of us, with the heaviest burden suffered by New York City...but it was George Bush who used actual footage of flag draped coffins from Ground Zero in his campaign ads. It was the GOP that spent their convention sanctimoniously invoking the events of that day over and over again. It was Dick Cheney who invoked the fear of more attacks, and Condoleeza Rice who used the phrase "a mushroom cloud" to justify invading Iraq.
That was no accident.
From the very beginning the events of 9/11 and "the war on terror" have been used to reshape our political landscape and our national security priorities. From the very beginning, even at the time of George Bush's initial speech before a united Congress just days after the attacks...there was a plan afoot to make 9/11 mean one thing: a war in Iraq to reshape the Middle East....a war that this Administration had been planning since before 9/11.
Now, in July of 2005, with another attack, this time in London, and George Bush's war in Iraq entering it's third year in full swing with no end in sight, it is quite clear to all of us that a brutal equation is in full force:
9/11 = Iraq
the "war on terror" = Iraq
our response to al Qaeda = Iraq
the bulk of our spending in response to terror = Iraq
our response to any new attack anywhere in the world = Iraq
And we all know....even those blathering AM radio hate-jockeys know...that the war in Iraq, unlike our forgotten and ongoing war in Afghanistan, was based on an outright lie.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And further, there were no WMD in Iraq. Neither of these rationales for war in Iraq justified sending our citizens to fight and die there. Simply put, there was no threat.
Dick Cheney can sputter till he's blue in the face. He can lie through his teeth again and again....heck, he's done so repeatedly. But Dick Cheney can't change the fact that he and George Bush made our national response to 9/11 a unilateral, highly divisive invasion of Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMD. Nothing. Zero. Nada.
And so we have passed through the looking glass.
In the wake of bombings in London that have the hallmark signature of al Qaeda...our world is asked, once again, to recommit to George Bush and Tony Blair's advocacy of this war.
And if we speak up against this insanity we are told to shut up. If we state the obvious: that more attacks don't retroactively justify a misguided, poorly executed war that was based on an outright lie: we are told, simply put, that we should be silent.
In a nutshell, the GOP has determined that our response to 9/11 or any new act of terror is...Iraq....and if you disagree with that equation, you are weak and evil. Friends, we have passed through the looking glass.
It didn't have to be this way.
Those who attacked the United States on September 11th, 2001 had us in their sights long before George Bush became President. If their goal, however, was to destabilize the United States and lure us into the misuse of our own power, they have succeeded thanks in large part to none other than George W. Bush. There is no hiding from this.
Strength is best expressed in the potential use of force. Our national security is best expressed by wars we don't fight and diplomatic successes we do win. And while, sometimes, in the course of events, we must use force, and must be ready to do so at all times and win; our strength is best expressed by the victories we win without firing a gun or shooting a missile.
That logic is what civilization and democracy is about on a bedrock level, and we all know it. That equation is one of our core values. It is not, however, George Bush's.
Every time a great power uses force is a situation fraught with potential downsides. First, because the use of force represents a failure of diplomatic and tactical pressures. And second, because failure in the use of force greatly reduces the perceived power of any nation. This is why, when great nations absolutely need to go to war, they build coalitions that guarantee that they will prevail, and ask every one of their citizens to make sacrifices in support of the cause.
That is the catch-22 of Iraq....just as it was the catch-22 of Viet Nam. We are pouring more and more of our resources into this fight...the wrong fight, in the wrong place, at the very worst time...not because it is reaping benefits.
It isn't.
Nor are we are pouring resources and our fellow citizen-soldiers lives into Iraq because it has proven highly effective at stopping acts of terror.
It hasn't.
We are fighting in Iraq because once George Bush misguidedly committed our great nation to this project the cost of failure was much too high for us to let it fail.
It is now this simple: If we weren't threatened by the situation in Iraq before our invasion: we certainly are now.
But given this state of affairs, and the dire events in London...we see it made all the more clear that the time is now, more than ever, for the great nations of the world, and responsible citizens everywhere, to stand together in the face of the threat of terror. It is not too late to resolve the "looking glass" that George Bush has made of Iraq and face terror the way we should have from the very beginning: directly in the eye.
For starters, in regards to Iraq, we need to break the looking glass, we need to break the equation that Bush has made between Iraq and 9/11 and get on with the real business of responding to the events of that infamous day and al Qaeda like we should have in the first place.
This will take work and pragmatism...and since I am in a "put or shut up" frame of mind...I would like to spell out at least a sketch of what is to be done.
On Iraq, the answer is simple to say and hard to do. We need to broker an international framework to get the United States out without Iraq becoming a "failed state." We need to get our troops out.
For this to happen we need all parties on board, especialy inside Iraq. And, yes, we need the United Nations. And in getting the UN involved we need realpolitik to bring cooperation from France, Germany, Japan, China and Russia and the broader Arab world. And, yes, this does mean military cooperation from these nations as unlikely as that sounds. You can call this ambitious or "pie in the sky." Of course, the Bush Administration has had two years of outright failure and we still don't know what the plan is or how much money we will spend there....or how many more of our citizens will give their lives.
As part of this transition to UN oversight, to a "new coalition"...the United States Military and big oil will have to yield their monopolies in Iraq. Iraq will not be simply an outpost of our military and our big companies. And as the international community builds a long term stake in preserving security and stabilty in Iraq, the US and British role will shrink, but not disappear, both militarily and economically. And it should be so. We all know this is true: at the end of the day, Iraq belongs to the Iraqis.
In a nutshell my view can be summed up in this statement: success at creating a framework for bringing our troops home IS success in Iraq.
That should be our priority and our policy. Simply put, that is now "our job" in Iraq, to get out and leave behind a structure that we don't monopolize or control. Indeed, just stating this goal and backing it up with action might begin to change things on the ground in Iraq.
I am convinced that we need to bring our troops home so that we can get on with the real confrontation with terror and those who attacked us on 9/11. We need to bring our troops home from Iraq so that we can do what we should have done in the first place in response to 9/11:
(I know this is unduly long, but bear with me....I think that having expressed my anti-Iraq war thoughts here I need to spell this out as well. In no uncertain terms. Folks need to see our alternate paradigm.)
#1: We need to build a new security infrastructure...a grid of investments in security that make us more safe, and, importantly, ensure that our nation will function even if we are attacked.
Simply put. Our first response to 9/11 should have been to do everything in our power to make our nation more safe and frustrate the ability of anyone to disrupt the function of our society at a whole.
Almost counter-intuitively, we need to focus on security infrastructure first.
Port security. Airline Security. Power and Water supply. Roadway and Transportation security. Urban and Industrial security. Internet security. Emergency Response infrastructure. Our Health Care and First Responders. Border security. By making the support structures of our society less vulnerable, we the citizens become less vulnerable as well, less vulnerable to attack and less vulnerable if attacked. This is absolute common sense....and should have been our largest investment.
However, George Bush and the GOP don't get this.
Simply put, if you make it harder to derail America...you make American citizens safer.
Yes, we are never going to be "safe" the way the Department of Homeland security implies. There will never be a day where the threat level is zero. But the lesson of 9/11 is that there never was a day like that. Our response, in light of 9/11 should have been to say, with bitter hindsight, that we could have been safer. Much more so. And we should have quickly got about the business of making it all of our job #1 to do that.
#2: We need to mount a permanent international law enforcement effort to root out al Qaeda and anyone who would threaten our Democracy and our citizens. If it takes military action to aid this law enforcement effort...so be it. But our goal should be to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice right here in the United States.
We all know this true. And we all know that the GOP has failed us starkly in this regard. Societies governed by law don't abandon those laws when threatened. In fact, that is the last moment you should abandon the Constitution. But that is just what we have done, and it is a powerful signal to our enemies.
In contrast, I can think of no more powerful symbol than seeing the leaders of al Qaeda on federal trial here in the United States. That should be our goal. But it isn't, and hasn't been pursued.
Capture. Trial. Justice. The break up of the al Qaeda network in cooperation with the aid of our friends and allies around the world. And the formation of a permanent international effort to root out threats to stability and our democracy whatever form they take.
This would be common sense. And we can start this today in response to the attacks in London and in cooperation with our allies.
#3: Finally, we need to drain the ideological swamp that breeds terrorism.
Simply put, terror's greatest asset is its ability to recruit members willing and alienated enough to do it's bidding. Less recruits = less terror. It's an equation George Bush should have thought about when he pipped, "bring 'em on."
Many of these recruits are from societies that are highly undemocratic. We can do something about that, and should.
Many of them are bothered by hypocrisies inherent in Western policy regarding Saudi Arabia and Israel. We can do something about that, and should.
Many of them are appalled at the the imbalance of development between the West and the Muslim world. We can do something about that as well. Why aren't we?
After 9/11 we should have made it our business to have an impact in all of these areas. Instead, we went to war in Iraq. Why is that?
In part, it does come down to geo-politics and to oil.
We have known in the industrial world, and here in the U.S. in particular...for decades... that our dependence on foreign oil has distorted our foreign policy towards the Middle East. We have now fought two wars in Iraq, with no resolution or stability in sight.
And it is in light of this situation that I am left with a final question today. And even though BushCo. is most interested in shutting us up and calling us unpatriotic for being green....I'll ask it anyway:
Isn't it high time for patriotic Americans to ask: when is our Government going to get serious about our depedence on oil from the Middle East?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/8/14597/18323
The flypaper strategy of the Bush adminsitration doesn't work. The 30%er's here voted for this strategy and the inept Bush policies and now they can't take responsibility for their actions.
Bush's polls are down and nobody claims to be a republican anymore. Real good for the personal responsibilty crowd. Just take responsibilty for your actions of voting for the Bush adminsitration ineptness and then we can all work together to get people in office that will find solutions not more of the same "stay the course"(what course?) attitude.
Who would that be? Hillary Clinton. Lord help us
Why Right Wing Blogs Don't Allow Comments
by Chris Bowers
Little Green Footballs, which is the only of the five most trafficked right-wing blogs that allows comments (Instapundit, Powerline, Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt do not allow comments) showed why yesterday. Via Tbogg and lowkell, here are just a smattering of what has been written at Little Green Footballs since yesterday:
"IMHO, they should go house to house interrogating every Muslim about what they know and when they knew it. And then kick every last one of them who is there illegally out of the country. And then decide if any of the rest of them deserve to stay. Now, if only Israel would do the same thing after its terror attacks.... "
"Can we eradicate Islam now, please?"
"If there are no Arabs there are no attacks. How many more need be sacrificed?"
"It is now time to force muslims to make a choice: Live peacefully or die. I prefer the latter."
"We need to stop fucking with these people and kill every one involved. I mean anyone with prior knowledge, anyone who payed for it, and anyone who supported it. Regardless of nationality."
"If its Islamic it will probably blow up. All Islamic get full body searches with VERY high intensity X-rays ."
"The best way to deliver those high intensity x-rays is through some W76 warheads at around 100 kt a piece. It will be easier to give a full body search after that."
"Britain should END ALL ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION NOW....Continuing to welcome the enemy into your country is insane."
"subhumans, first time on 2 feet...round em all up, every friggin' last one of them...unfortunately, I still think it will take even more violence from the Arabs before the West wakes up and goes savage on em"
"Martyring Muslims doesn't seem to make much of a difference to the fanatics. What is needed is to take their human capital out their hands - their children. No more warped children, no more jihadis. "
The calls for genocide and apartheid are flowing freely. There is a reason why blogs like Instapundit and Powerline do not allow comments, and why Time magazine would give its "Blog of the Year" award to Powerline even though Free Republic actually "broke" the CBS story. There is a concerted effort on the part of the right to prevent this sort of overt racism and fascism on the right from being given any sunshine. These, however, are not isolated comments. They are numerous and they are appearing on the second most trafficked right-wing blog in the country, and by far the largest right-wing blog that allows comments.
It's time for the sun to shine in.
Comments like these:
Fox's Gibson on "golden opportunity" missed: If France had been selected for 2012 Olympics, terrorists would "blow up Paris, and who cares?"
The day before the July 7 terrorist attacks on London buses and subways, Fox News host John Gibson stated that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) "missed a golden opportunity" because, if France had been selected to host the 2012 Olympics, terrorists would "blow up Paris, and who cares?" Following the London attacks, Gibson reiterated that the IOC ought to have selected Paris instead of London, because the British should "let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while."
From the July 6 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, guest-hosted by Gibson:
GIBSON: By the way, just wanted to tell you people, we missed -- the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity today. If they had picked France, if they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?
From the "My Word" segment of the July 7 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.
So to all the right wingers, this is a priviliege(comments) that Hans affords you. Remember that the next time you decide that you want to treat him with disrepect.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE | www.ourfuture.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
"[We] believe in fighting for people who don't have a voice. It's what we have
always believed in. We know the difference between right and wrong. How about
if we actually stand up and fight with passion for what we believe in?"
John Edwards - 2005 Take Back America Conference
Dear Erik,
We cannot turn our heads from the brutal genocide occurring in the Darfur region
of Sudan. Although it's not a focus of our work at the Campaign for America's
Future, this horror challenges our core progressive values, and calls upon us to
stand up for what is right and defend those who cannot defend themselves. As
the G-8 summit issues its final resolutions on aid to Africa, we must add our
voice, and declare once more the utter imperative that the United States act, in
conjunction with its allies, to stop the genocide in Darfur.
400,000 people have died in Darfur over the past two years and 15,000 continue
to die each month. [1] More than two and a half million people have been forced
to flee their homes. The Sudanese government, through its army and militias has
fostered a campaign of murder, rape and displacement.
You can help stop the slaughter. In the film Hotel Rwanda, Don Cheadle's
character, Paul Rusesabagina, said during the Rwandan genocide: "There will be
no rescue, no intervention... you must shame them to action." Today, tens of
thousands of people are dying in Sudan and the American people need to be roused
to shame our leaders into action. Please, write a letter to the editor of your
local newspaper and tell them that the United States has a moral obligation to
stop genocide.
http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=170789&l=99188
The people of Darfur are not nameless statistics being slowly counted off, nor
are they combatants in a war. They are mostly ordinary farmers and herders,
husbands and wives struggling to raise their children and survive in one of the
world's harshest environments. Now, through no fault of their own, they are
facing man-made horrors that no one should have to bear. The New York Times
describes one woman's experience:
"First the raiders shot her husband dead, she said, her voice choking, and then
they whipped her, taunted her with racial insults against black people and
mocked her by asking why her husband was not there to help her. Then eight of
them gang-raped her."[2]
While the Bush administration recognized last year that genocide is occurring in
Darfur, the President has done little to stop these atrocities. Bush recently
broke a six-month silence on the slaughter admitting once again that genocide is
occurring in Darfur. Now we must show Mr. Bush and the Congress that genocide
cannot be acknowledged and accepted. Action is needed to bring it to a halt. The
President should immediately endorse and the Congress quickly pass the Darfur
Peace and Accountability Act, which calls for a stronger intervention against
the genocide and for bringing the killers and rapists to justice.
Please write your local newspaper and make sure that people across the country
know about this human rights catastrophe and that the time has come for the
president and Congress to lead in bringing it to an end.
http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=170789&l=99188
Join us in building momentum for action, by sending letters to the editor
demanding that President Bush take action to end the genocide in Darfur. As Don
Cheadle, the lead actor in Hotel Rwanda observed:
"Writing letters may sound simplistic, but actually, it is vital. During the
Rwandan genocide, White House officials said they didn't hear from the American
public. We must not be silent again: Our leaders will act if there is a domestic
political cost for doing nothing...If we stand idly by and take no action to end
this nightmare, the blame will be shared by us all." [3]
Write a letter today and help stop the slaughter.
http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=170789&l=99188
I know that you aren't accustomed to getting a message from the Campaign on an
issue like this. But genocide can't simply be someone else's issue. It is, or
should be, the responsibility of all people of conscience.
Thank you for considering this appeal, and for all that you do.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Borosage, Co-Director
Campaign for America's Future
P.S: If you would like to get more involved in the campaign to stop the genocide
in Darfur, please visit the following websites:
Genocide Intervention Fund: http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=170789&l=99185
Save Darfur: http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=170789&l=99190
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] "Darfur's Real Death Toll, The Washington Post, 24 April 2005
http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=170789&l=99194
[2] Kristoff, Nicholas D. "Day 141 of Bush's Silence." The New York Times, 31
May 2005. http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=170789&l=99195
[3] "'Never Again'-Again." USA Today, 1 March 2005
http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=170789&l=99196
Brit Hume Says He Wants to Profit Off the Terrorist Attack
Media Matters points out that Fox News' top anchorman, Brit Hume, gave us a glimpse into just how cynical, greedy and disgusting the right-wing's outlook on the world is:
"My first thought when I heard - just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"
- Fox News's Brit Hume, 7/7/05
That's right - his first thought wasn't "how tragic," or "let's say a prayer for the dead," or "how can I help the victims" - his first thought was, there was a terrorist attack, how can I personally profit off it? In fact, his impulse to use the bloodshed to make himself money was so intense, he actually voiced it on national television (FYI - in case you'd like to voice your displeasure, Brit's email address is brit.hume@foxnews.com and his office number is 202-824-6300).
Of course, this was only the worst example today from Fox. Earlier in the day, a Fox reporter seemed to cheer on the attack because he said "it works to our advantage." Meanwhile, Fox's Stuart Varney was genuinely excited that the attack will mean other progressive issues will now be knocked out of the public debate. "It takes global warming off the front burner," Varney frothed. "It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again."
Remember, these people are using the public's airwaves to spew out this bile. To call these people nauseating is an insult to nausea.
I agree with the analysis that this put terrorism back in front. If anything good came out of this tragedy, it is the fact that people are again focusing on terrorism. This is the single most important struggle we are facing in my generation and the media refuses to show the images or even talk about 9/11. I watch the history channel and watch the Arizona get bombed like crazy at Pearl Harbor. What is wrong with showing images of 9/11 or even the psychotic terrorists chopping innocent civilians heads off to remind people who we are fighting. It really is a diservice what the media is doing. Unfortunately, it takes something like the tragedy in London for people to say ,"Oh yeah, we are fighting a war."
By the way, if we don't win this war, you can forget about Global Warming and African Aid. There will be no one left to champion your precise issues.
No relevancy to the debate again Ryan. No thoughts on what was posted just more liberal/progressives/democrats bad. Republicans good and I agree with everything they say. "Stay the course"(what course?) is what you beleive. It isn't working and we need solutions and questions answered not more Bush rhetoric.
I guess you don't read on your own posts, you wrote:
[Of course, this was only the worst example today from Fox. Earlier in the day, a Fox reporter seemed to cheer on the attack because he said "it works to our advantage." Meanwhile, Fox's Stuart Varney was genuinely excited that the attack will mean other progressive issues will now be knocked out of the public debate. "It takes global warming off the front burner," Varney frothed. "It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again."]
I wrote:
[I agree with the analysis that this put terrorism back in front. If anything good came out of this tragedy, it is the fact that people are again focusing on terrorism. This is the single most important struggle we are facing in my generation and the media refuses to show the images or even talk about 9/11. I watch the history channel and watch the Arizona get bombed like crazy at Pearl Harbor. What is wrong with showing images of 9/11 or even the psychotic terrorists chopping innocent civilians heads off to remind people who we are fighting. It really is a diservice what the media is doing. Unfortunately, it takes something like the tragedy in London for people to say ,"Oh yeah, we are fighting a war."
By the way, if we don't win this war, you can forget about Global Warming and African Aid. There will be no one left to champion your precise issues.]
I don't know what you mean by no relevancy, but I was responding directly to your post.
Your the one who wrote liberals/progressives/democrats bad republicans good. I don't think you will either parties mentioned in my post. Nice try little Erik. Once again YOUR irrelevant.
Do you condemn the remarks made by Fox or do you support them as you stated? Thus the comment liberal/progressive/democrat bad(you beleive when comments made like this from non-republicans need to be codemned). Republicans(Fox is part of the republican propaganda machine)good.
Terrorism is an important issue but "Stay the course"(what course?) is what you beleive. It isn't working and we need solutions and questions answered not more Bush rhetoric.
To conclude you offer no relevancy to the debate just Bush good everyone is just playa hatin on Bush if they question his inept policies.
Do you condemn these remarks Ryan?
Brit Hume Says He Wants to Profit Off the Terrorist Attack
Media Matters points out that Fox News' top anchorman, Brit Hume, gave us a glimpse into just how cynical, greedy and disgusting the right-wing's outlook on the world is:
"My first thought when I heard - just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"
- Fox News's Brit Hume, 7/7/05
That's right - his first thought wasn't "how tragic," or "let's say a prayer for the dead," or "how can I help the victims" - his first thought was, there was a terrorist attack, how can I personally profit off it? In fact, his impulse to use the bloodshed to make himself money was so intense, he actually voiced it on national television (FYI - in case you'd like to voice your displeasure, Brit's email address is brit.hume@foxnews.com and his office number is 202-824-6300).
From the poorman:
I'm Not Sure How Many More Corners We Can Stand To Turn
o, how's it going in Iraq?
[H]ere's a brief history of estimates of the size of the insurgency:
Summer 2003 - There's no insurgency! Just some bandits.
Winter 2004 - A few hundred to a couple thousand dead-enders.
Summer 2004 - As many as 5,000.
Fall 2004 - Up to 20,000.
Winter 2005 - About 40,000 dedicated, up to 160,000 kibitzers.
Summer 2005 - ?
All this time we've been assured that our kill ratios are splendid, that the insurgents lose every single encounter and so on. Meanwhile the top US estimate (the 20,000) quadrupled this year. Our intelligence has either sucked all along and the insurgency has always been much bigger than the Pentagon and NRO have imagined, or the insurgency has mushroomed despite all the Good News You Never Hear About and our unbroken string of military successes (Samarra, Fallujah, Najaf, Samarra, Najaf, Fallujah, Samarra . . . ).
Either way, it's hard to figure out how loudly I'd have to cheer to make the matter go away.
We should remember that these numbers are not actual numbers of anything - no one at any point took a head count of the "insurgency", they do not indicate that the actual number of anti-US fighters has increased by 2-3 orders of magnitude over the last year (although it may be so) - these are figures pulled out of someone's ass, massaged for political expediency, and then released into the wild. So while this tells us nothing quantitative about the actual size of the insurgency, it's a useful way of measuring the anxiety in official quarters. The point of the 200,000 number is not that there are 200,000 insurgents, it's that things are going so poorly that it's no use saying anything less.
Let us now remember what a wise man once said about helping the war effort on the home front:
To the extent the blogosphere can dispel the propaganda cover willingly provided by the Left, people on the home front can help the soldiers in the field. It is necessary to link the war criminal behavior of the enemy with the studied blindness of 'sophisticates' towards their most heinous crimes. They are twinned; with the former made possible by the latter.
The way that normal, non-hallucinating people of any political persuasion can help the soldiers in the field, the people of Iraq, and, not least of all, themselves, is to appreciate the true situation as best they can, and to demand accountability from our political leaders when the situation is not handled effectively. The true situation is that there is a large and popular insurgency in Iraq, made up of disparate interests, but all drawing their strength from the long-standing popular discontent with the American and coalition occupation, a discontent based on a very understandable dislike of foreign armies, and fueled by the thousands of Iraqis we have killed, intentionally or not, to say nothing of Abu Ghraib - here, 6 months later, almost completely forgotten. This is the reality that was apparent to journalists well outside the "Sunni triangle" last March, as well as to the Marines who first "liberated" Baghdad. True, many soldiers in Iraq have been in places where people were nice and glad to have them, which is great, but misses the main point. Kennedy was shot on a sunny day, but most newspapers didn’t lead with the nice weather.
Appreciate this. Understand that the people killing us in Iraq aren't motivated by Gore Vidal or inspired by Susan Sontag or organized by Michael Moore or in cahoots in any way with any of the right's celebrity piñatas - not literally, not metaphorically, not if you look at it in a certain way, not to any infinitesimal degree, not in any sense, not in any way at all. They do not lead a clandestine international conspiracy of Evil which has corrupted everything in every foreign country plus everything in America not owned by loyal Bush Republican apparatchiks; nor are they members of such a conspiracy; nor does a conspiracy remotely matching that description exist. To think otherwise is, literally and to a very great degree, insanity. It is insane.
And if you really want to help the American war effort, you can join the fucking armed forces and go to Iraq like thousands of others have, and then you can do the best job you can to show them that Americans care about them and want, above all else, for all of our futures to be better and more peaceful than the past, and get paid shit. You will then be my personal hero, really, and I hope you don't get killed or maimed or see or do something that makes you hate everything for the rest of your life, which is a very real possibility. If you, like me, are too much of a coward to risk your life and health on a mission like that, then you can donate to charities which help soldiers (although it is worth looking into where and what kind of help is needed – some places don’t need it as much as others). But the easiest thing you can do is influence the politicians who create the policies – and in some cases the military strategies - which are being carried out in Iraq, but to do this in a useful way you first have to make some contact with reality. Reality is that the situation in Iraq is horrible, the outlook for any lasting peace is grim, and that this has nothing to do with a nebulous, malignant, all-powerful “Left”, and everything to do with the people in power who make bad and stupid policies. You can pull your head out of your ass, stop dreaming up stupid conspiracy theories about how everyone around the world you don’t like is working together to destroy Freedom, and tell them that they need to do a better job. And if they won’t do a better job, the solution is not to get upset at people who aren’t waving their pom-poms or denouncing Saddam single-mindedly enough for you, it is to fire the fuck-ups so we can maybe have some chance at salvaging something from this fiasco.
…And, before you ask: no, I have no clue about how we can improve things in Iraq. I don’t have a single idea for how we can un-shit the bed, and I don’t hold out much hope that this whole bed-shitting episode is ever going to be brought to a lemony-fresh conclusion. I do, however, know who shit the bed, and have some sense of how frequently he shits there. Let’s stop shitting for a start.
http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/003609.html
Erik are you a card carrying left-wing Dick Durbin Howard Dean echo chamber member?
All you do is post articles from left-wing propaganda sites.
I know coming up with your own ideas is tough and can sometimes give you a headache, but it feels good. You should try it.
I'm sure it gets on your nerves and that's the point for you to broaden your reading. Because listening to Rush and the gang all day can really brainwash you and cause you not to think for yourself. But since you want to point out Durbin and Dean, I'll take that bait. I am proud of there service as politicians and liberal/progressive/democrats. You on the other hand are afraid to even call yourself a Republican/conservative. You aren't even proud of the Rove and the company that Republicans keep. If that's the best you got then you are in serious trouble. Way to face the personal responsibility. Be responsible for your blunder of voting for an inept Bush admin that has no solution except "stay the course"(what course?) rhetoric.
I know it's hard for you to think for yourself and all you do is repeat the right wing echo chamber but you will not steal my material that I use against you. I'm flattered but start thinking for yourself then you will see the light.
THat's the difference between you and me, Erik. I don't trust either party. I go with the party that is going to protect individual rights, which happens to not be the dems with the recent ruling on eminent domain. I'm for lower taxes and smaller gov't. If the dems become that party 20 years from now, I'm on board. Unfortunately, the repubs are becoming the party of big gov't too. This is why I consider myself a libertarian. I don't have a home under either major party. I know one thing, I will never vote for a dem at the federal level the way your party is heading. I will still vote for dems at the local level, but any party that has become the cheerleaders of terrorists and the critics of our troops is not deserving of my vote in federal elections.
You know erik if I had a blog and it was clogged with people like you just reposting article after article instead of providing their own opinion with links to relevant articles in ONE POST I'd pull the plug on the comment module too.
As for the post, the G8 Summit is now on track after the London Bombing. I'd say the terrorists hit themselves twice instead of accomplishing their original goal. We're all saddened that even one life was lost in that carnage, but to see these animals attack woke a lot of people up from what was becoming a distant memory. In the day that followed the attacks I was reading an article on CNN.com that had letters posted from people around the world and what they thought about these attacks and not one person brought up Iraq, Bush or Blair. The blame was focused on those who killed, not those who are trying to rid the world of these idiots.
Aid to Africa is a pipe dream as long as those corrupt governments are still in place, global warming may or may not be a real issue, but to claim that global islamic terrorism isn't one of the "most pressing global issues today" is foolhardy and close-minded. I hope this event shows Europe that they are not safe regardless of the war in Iraq because these murderers only have one goal in mind: to kill as many non-muslims as possible and instate their twisted brand of Islam as the world's one true religion. All the evidence you need is in their statement that this attack was in retaliation for both Iraq AND Afghanistan.
Maybe you would pull the plug but they never put the plug in the outlet and turned the comments on in the first place. I have voiced my opinion but you choose not to listen. You come here and repeat the right wing echo chamber talking points. Go to where you are appreciated. Please we won't miss you.
"I will still vote for dems at the local level, but any party that has become the cheerleaders of terrorists and the critics of our troops is not deserving of my vote in federal elections."
This is a right wing echo chamber talking point. You truly beleive that liberals are cheerleaders for terrorists. You're a joke. As my previouys article points out the American taliban religous right has more in common with the terrorists. They beleive in the same goals. As far as your claim that you are libertarian. How many libertarians have you voted for? That's what I thought.
30%er's like Sean and Ryan are not to be debated with because they see things only from there little r Republican world. No conservativism, no progressivism, no liberalism, no libertarianism, no ideals, no principles, no values, no facts, no truth, no honesty, no fairness, no opportunity, just straight Republican party platform like the rest of the current Republican party leadership. That's a 30%er.
From the neocons,(Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush. Wolfowitz, Perle, etc.) Golden Boy Allawi:
Allawi: this is the start of civil war
Hala Jaber, Amman
IRAQ’S former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has warned that his country is facing civil war and has predicted dire consequences for Europe and America as well as the Middle East if the crisis is not resolved.
“The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq,” said Allawi, a long-time ally of Washington.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1687910,00.html
Please read this articlem if you still don't beelive that Rove is the source, because I guess everyone is just lying. It's that damn "liberal media" that are against you again. Go run and hide.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/
Matt Cooper's Source
What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.
Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.
For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.
The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.
In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "
Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that ROVE spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.
A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.
Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing—and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.
Get out and read more and don't think that there is a liberal media conspiracy against the far right wing.
erik what is wrong with you? Seriously? I have no problems if Rove was the leak, he should be arrested and have the book thrown at him, so don't for a second think that just because I disagree with you on certain topics that I have some long lost love for Bush and his mastermind. I never said that this was some left-wing liberal media plot, only that we should wait to begin unsubstantiated claims and accusations until we hear from the court on exactly who leaked the information.
For some reason you have this innate dislike for anyone who seems to disagree with you and for all your open-mindness its funny to read the following quote:
"30%er's like Sean and Ryan are not to be debated with because they see things only from there little r Republican world."
I'm not a Republican, and I'm sure ryan has stated the same before, but I find it hilarious that you avoid all of our questions by simply stating that because we see things differently that gives you some sort of immunity from debating with us, while at the same time attacking us because we choose to ignore your multiple re-posting of articles. You can't have it both ways, either grow up or keep your head in the sand.
If you're not a republican how many libertarians have you voted for? I didn't get an answer from you pseudo-libertarian republicans.
erik, I've already posted that information twice, so here is the third and last time I'll indulge you on this question.
In 1996 my first vote for President went to Clinton, in 1998 I found that many of the spending issues and social problems in America were being furthered by the Democrats and began looking for a party that fit my beliefs. I began voting for Libertarians for local office late in 98 and in 99.
In 2000 I voted for Harry Browne for President, and pretty much a straight Libertarian ticket during the general election. Again in 2002 I voted for Libertarians for local office and state positions here in Texas (a few won), but in 2004 I could not bring myself to vote for Michael Badnarik since he stood for isolationism from the rest of the world, and in a time where America can't afford to just stick its head in the sand he presented the wrong choice for the party. So in 2004 I voted for Bush, only due to his stance on the war on terror, nothing else.
If Kerry actually had a back bone and didn't want to have us pass some goofy global test and had some real ideas on how to solve problems I would have given him a look, but alas he was an empty shell.
So there you go.
The plan for Iraq is to CONTINUE establishing a stable government and help them defend themselves. That is how we will get our troops out. That is and has always been the plan. I'm sick of hearing there was never a plan or exit strategy... that IS the exit strategy, sorry if you think liberating those people from Saddam was a mistake.
And Bush and the GOP are not saying just shutup to people who disagree. You are creating something that isn't true. Just because too many of the criticisms are illogical or flawed, doesn't mean they are telling you to shut up, but I guess that's what you feel like they are telling you to do when they correct your point of view.
-DAVE
Post a Comment
<< Home