destruction

To reinforce my point. Lets see... "There ought to be limits to freedom."-Bush... Dallas Morning News http://www.rtmark.com/old/more/articles/bushdallas0522bush1bushsite.htm "A dictatorship is a heck of alot easier.- Bush... CNN and White house documents. So it does not surprise me he would call the constitution a goddammed piece of paper WHICH HE DID SAY. Fucking liar. The info came from 3 people including one of Bush's own aids. So now you're gonna defend a crackpot (Bush) who can't prove anything he lies about instead of defending America?? This proves Bush is anti-civil liberties and cares less about the Constitution and anyone who does not give a fuck about our constitutional rights, the freedoms the constitution gives us as Americans and the Constitution itself says alot about a president who cares less about America and it's people. He should pack his bags and move to Saudi Arabia, or North Korea. Praise be to capitol hill blue for reporting what the corporately owned mainstream media is afraid to (and refuse) to report. You can come out of the closet now because your faux liberalism has been exposed. Oh, it's blue LINK. Not blue ink. Learn to read. And to dr moron: I have a better tune for you play on your mom's tits. It's called shut the fuck up. Now go ass rape your daughter. It's parchment (Hemp paper) poster boy. please forget to pull the rip cord the next time you jump.

*Compiles a list of treasonous American freedom hating congressmen and senators not to vote for.*

Good move.

It's in the capitol hill blue link. Learn to read.

Dodd (D-CT), Not Voting http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00358 This is the same guy who was the only senator who voted against the patriot act 4 years ago. What a coincidence he would abstain this time.

“Israel Makes the Nazi State Look Very Moderateâ€12/14/2005 1:00:00 PM GMT Advertisement David Duke, an ex-Louisiana State Representative and former leader of the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S. Hearing a lot about the political turmoil that plagues the Middle East region, which the State of Israel plays a central role in, we need to seize the chance and try to stress the great difference between Judaism and Zionism. Unfortunately many believe that Zionism is another synonym for Judaism, believing that the entire Jewish people are responsible for the actions of the Zionist government and the current bloodshed which has tainted the world in the last decades. This is a Grave mistake! Below are excerpts from an interview with the American white supremacist David Duke, a former Louisiana State Representative and former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in the United States, aired on Syrian TV on last month, which draws people’s attention to the Zionist agenda, correcting the widespread misconception about the link between Judaism and Zionism. Interviewer: “How do you read the ongoing U.S.-led escalation against Syria within the context of re-mapping the Middle East?†David Duke: “Well, you must understand that the chief architects of the war were Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Daniel Feith, Mr. Warmser, and Elliot Abrams, in the United States. They were the architects of this war. Mr. Pearl, as well as Mr. Warmser and Feith, wrote a paper called "A Clean Break: Securing the Realm," a paper for Israel, for Benjamin Netanyahu. That paper said that the way to Damascus was through Baghdad. “ â€I believe that this is part of the ongoing Zionist effort, in their control of American foreign policy, to dominate the entire Middle East, and I believe, dominate the world. I think America is occupied in many ways the way the Golan Heights is occupied, the way the West Bank of Palestine is occupied.†Interviewer: “Dr. Duke, what impact has the worsening situation of the occupying forces in Iraq and the daily shipment of body-bags of U.S. and allied soldiers to the USA and elsewhere, on Bush's ability to plunge into another quagmire?†Duke: “This war is a disaster for the United States, and I think that this has to put pause in some of the Zionist neo-cons about going into a new war. But the one wild card is that these neo-cons are crazy. They are insane people.†“They are not normal people. The people who are pushing Jewish supremacism, Zionism - they are absolute evil and they are crazy. All they know is more power, and so there is a real danger, I should say, for Syria, and a danger for Iran at this point.†Interviewer: “How different is the Syria that you have seen for the first time from that portrayed by U.S. and other Western media outlets?†Duke: “I have defended Syria for a long time, so I was admiring Syria, I have admired your president very much. I hope at some point to be able to meet him and shake his hand. I think he is the greatest man in a very difficult period, and especially with what's going on right now, in terms of Lebanon and its relations with Syria. But absolutely, even from my perspective, and it shows you how the Zionist media around the world controls and affects all of us. Even those of us who are aware of it - it's subtly affecting.†Interviewer: “How badly, can you tell our viewers, is the policy making process hijacked by those neo-cons?†Duke: “Well, as a patriotic American - and I come here not as a Syrian partisan, but as an American patriot - it's more shocking for me than it should be for you, because our sons and daughters are being killed in Iraq, are being wounded, innocent Iraqis have died, America is being hurt, and yet we have this policy which is only for Israel. This war is completely about Israel, and I would like to suggest to people in the Middle East... Sometimes I believe that the Zionists run a mystification on us. I find, with some of the leftists around the world who say this is a war for oil or this is an American imperialist war - No, this is a case of the Zionists using America to fight their war with our blood and our money.†Interviewer: “Now, Dr. Duke, is there room for other than the Jewish extremist supremacists to actively engage in the changing of this pro-Zionist hegemony in the U.S., and how?†Duke: “Well, first off, I think we have to understand that there are certainly some Jews who oppose the Zionists. There is no question about that. But it also must be understood that every major Jewish organization in the United States, including the Council of Presidents of Jewish Organizations, supports this Iraq war. The largest and most powerful lobby in the United States government is the Israel lobby. Now as an American citizen, I find it pretty strange that a foreign country would have the most powerful lobby in our government.†â€So I think... My book is dedicated to Israel Shahak, who is in fact a Jewish person. I don't consider myself anti-Semitic. But I am aware of the fact that I think more Jews need to stand up against the extremist dominance within their faith, within their nation. And until that happens, we cannot continue that road. But even more importantly, we - not only in America and Europe, but also in the Middle East - we must stand up and start telling the truth. If we don't talk about some of the realities of this conflict... You know, Israel is really an apartheid state in many ways.†â€And Israel is a state... that we wouldn't tolerate actions of the American people. The New York Times is all against... It's all for intermarriage in the United States of America. But the New York Times supports Israel, where a marriage of Jewish person and a non-Jew is illegal, where a Jew who is a member of the Cohanim, which is the elite element of the Jewish tradition - they cannot even marry a Jewish person, a person who is a full-fledged Jew, of the Jewish faith, who has one drop of (non) Jewish blood. I mean, these people... Israel makes the Nazi state look very moderate in terms of its views.†Interviewer: “How have you been treated by American media since you have been taken this stance?†Duke: “Very bad. I would say that I'm treated about as bad as Saddam Hussein.†â€The number one problem, political, economic, and social on this planet now is what we call Zionism and more specifically, Jewish supremacism. These radical, extremist Jewish elements such as Ariel Sharon, such as the neo-cons in Washington, believe this strange (idea) that they have a right to control the world - not just Palestine, not just Syria, Iraq, and Iran and the rest of the Middle East, but also London, New York, and Toronto. All over the world you see the same pattern of control over the media, the same pattern of influence.†Interviewer: “You've mentioned London. London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, whom I suppose that you know or have heard of.†Duke: “Yeah, I admire him.†Interviewer: “Has actually described Sharon as a war criminal, and said Sharon should be tried at The Hague.†Duke: “Of course, if anyone should be tried for war crimes, it's Ariel Sharon. The idea that the president of my country sits down and breaks bread and shares wine with Ariel Sharon, to me is amazing. I mean.†Interviewer: “And he described him... Bush described him as a man of peace.†Duke: “Exactly. I mean, Bush is totally... Bush is not a very smart man, and he is totally under the thumb of the Jewish supremacists. The president of Canada said it very well. He said that Bush is like a puppet. He knows what he has to say to get the support of the media, and political support. I think right now, they dangled him, they created...†â€The Zionists created the lies of this war. In fact, Steven Cohen was the CIA person who manufactured the evidence... Even Israel's CIA, even Israel's Mossad actually put forward evidence to the United States about weapons of mass destruction. Israel itself basically (knows) that they lied, they know Bush knows that he lied, so now they say to Bush: OK, either you continue on with this program, with securing the realm, with this war, either you continue on with this or we will have you impeached.†â€It's interesting. This is something the Arab community also is not aware of. The neo-cons, the people who founded this were actually Trotskyite communists originally. This is not well known... “ Interviewer: “Trotskyites?†Duke: “Trotskyites. Yes, exactly. Russia has worked to free itself from the Jewish supremacist Bolshevists.†http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10367

Shut the fuck up. Your patriot act is dead!

THE NATION Senate Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act The rebuff to Bush comes amid news that he authorized wiretaps of Americans without court clearance. Fate of post-9/11 law is unclear. By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — The Senate on Friday blocked legislation to renew the Patriot Act, delivering a dramatic rebuff to President Bush that reflected rising concern over his treatment of civil liberties and privacy rights in the war on terrorism. A Republican bid to end debate and consider a bill that the House easily approved this week fell seven votes short, leaving the fate of the anti-terrorism law unclear as Congress prepared to recess. Key provisions of the statute are to expire Dec. 31. ADVERTISEMENT It was the second policy reversal on the terrorism front in as many days for the president, who on Thursday bowed to congressional pressure and agreed to accept a formal ban on cruel or inhumane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The Bush administration previously had said such a restriction might undermine U.S. interrogation efforts. And it coincided with a published report in the New York Times on Friday that Bush had authorized eavesdropping on hundreds of Americans after the Sept. 11 attacks without getting court approval. The report triggered bipartisan criticism that spilled over into the debate over the Patriot Act — and might have hardened opposition to renewing the law. The report, confirmed by the Los Angeles Times, describes a highly classified program of monitoring communications between Americans in the U.S. and individuals overseas who were suspected of having ties to terrorist networks. The program, run by the top-secret National Security Agency, was approved by Bush in the wake of Sept. 11; it is drawing criticism because intelligence agencies ordinarily must gain permission from special courts before they can listen in on conversations of U.S. citizens, domestically or overseas. "If we needed a wake-up call about the need for adequate civil liberties protections to be written into our laws … this is that wake-up call," said Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), part of a bipartisan group of senators who ignited the filibuster fight. "They are saying, 'Trust us, we are following the law.' Give me a break," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "Across the country and across the political spectrum, no one is buying it anymore. There is no accountability. There is no oversight…. This is Big Brother run amok. "With these new developments," Kennedy said, "we must take a step back and not rush the Patriot Act." Four Republican senators broke ranks in the 53-46 vote. Sixty votes were needed to cut off debate and block a filibuster of the measure. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) subsequently changed his vote to oppose ending debate, in a maneuver that gives him the right to call for a second vote. That made the official vote 52 to 47. Critics of the House-backed bill, which would extend 16 expiring provisions of the act, say it doesn't include adequate safeguards for civil liberties. They have proposed a three-month extension of the law in its current form to work out differences. But supporters of the law have said they might prefer to have it expire than subject it to future tinkering. Frist indicated that he would try to corral more votes over the weekend before Congress adjourns in the next few days for the holidays. "The debate will continue on this very important bill," he said. "We will not see a short-term extension." Friday's outcome was a blow to Bush and the Justice Department. The Patriot Act has become the administration's signature weapon in waging its fight against terrorism on the battlefield and in the courts, and it has enjoyed the support of most Americans. Many of the provisions have been used sparingly, and the changes being debated in some instances amounted to no more than fine-tuning. Administration officials said Friday that some members of Congress were putting the nation at risk. "These provisions of the USA Patriot Act are essential to our efforts in the war on terrorism, and their loss will damage our ability to prevent terrorist attacks," Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said. "Our nation cannot afford to let these important counter-terrorism tools lapse." Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said Bush would not sign a plan introduced Monday by a bipartisan group to extend the act for three months while a compromise was worked out. "The president calls on the leaders of both parties to start putting the safety of the American people above politics," he said. The Senate vote reflected what some lawmakers see as a deepening credibility gap with the administration and a growing frustration among Democrats and some Republicans that administration officials are not to be trusted. "The scope of concern has been broadened," said James Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington advocacy group critical of the Patriot Act. Recent disclosures "are telling members of Congress that they need to be a lot less trusting of the administration and a lot more careful. There is a feeling that if you give the administration an inch, they will take a mile." One expiring provision would make permanent the ability of intelligence agents and prosecutors to share information, which officials have said has been crucial to rooting out and prosecuting suspected terrorists. If the law is not renewed, "the wall goes right back up again on Jan. 1. Is that what we want?" asked Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). "God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Patriot Act after it has expired." But Senate Democratic and Republican foes of renewal denied that they were trying to kill the act, saying it was the administration that was playing politics. "None of us wants it to expire, and those who threaten to let it expire rather than fix it are playing a dangerous game," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). Wisconsin Democrat Russell D. Feingold said the Republican leadership would bear responsibility if the law expired. "That would only happen if the proponents block alternative reauthorization that can easily pass," he said. "Now is not the time for brinkmanship or threats." Though officials said a failure to renew the Patriot Act would be ominous, the effect would be unclear. Investigators would still be able to use their expanded powers to complete ongoing probes. Moreover, despite Republican claims, some believe that prosecutors and intelligence officials would still be able to share information, because of a 2002 court decision. The renewal legislation passed by the House would make permanent 14 of 16 sections of the law. Two of the most controversial sections — authorizing investigators to use wiretaps to monitor multiple phones and to use secret warrants to obtain business records, including ones from bookstores and libraries — would expire in four years unless Congress renewed them. Critics are seeking changes to the act that would require the government to establish a closer connection between records requests and terrorism. They also say the law lacks a meaningful opportunity for targets to challenge the requests in court. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), an administration critic, said the new disclosures had influenced his vote. "I went to bed undecided. But today's revelation … is shocking," Schumer said. "If this government will discard a law that has worked well for over 30 years without a whit of discussion or notice, then for sure we better be certain that we have safeguards on that government." Counting Frist, 51 Republicans and two Democrats — Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tim Johnson of South Dakota — voted in favor of the renewal legislation. Four Republicans voted against it: Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Larry E. Craig of Idaho. http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

2 wrongs don't make a right homo.

cocksmoking bootlicker.

The Alito Nomination: A Pivotal Battle...And What's Needed to Defeat the Fascist Agenda Revolution #027, December 19, 2005, posted at revcom.us "We are ready to rumble!" said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "Why? Because this is a moment in history that has been decades in the making." The forces of reactionary Christian theocracy smell blood in upcoming confirmation hearings over the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. The itch for a brawl by the Christian fascists reflects the enormous stakes of the Alito nomination. In that light, it's necessary to soberly assess what the Alito nomination represents, what an Alito on the Supreme Court would mean, and what is required to confront and roll back the whole package that the Alito nomination is a part of. A Battering Ram for Christian Fundamentalist Theocracy Alito on the Supreme Court would be a battering ram in bringing about a pivotal shift in the legal structure and norms that have been in place in this country for decades. While these structures and norms have always served to defend and extend the exploitation and oppression of capitalism, what is being put in place on a whole host of questions--presidential power, the rights of defendants in the legal system, prohibitions of torture, equal protection under the law for women and minorities, international law, and the separation of church and state--will represent a qualitative leap for the worse for the people and their ability to resist, to fight for a better world, and to make revolution. To take one concentrated example: Alito has stated that his legal opinion (not his personal opinion), leads to the conclusion that there is no legal justification for abortion. A recently uncovered memo discloses Alito identifying his mission as "bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects." But Alito’s legal philosophy goes beyond outlawing abortion. Alito argued in a 1986 case that "nonresident immigrants of other countries have 'no due process rights' under the Constitution." In a 1984 case, Alito argued that it was perfectly acceptable for Tennessee cops to shoot and kill a 15-year-old boy who was fleeing a home where they were investigating a burglary, even though the police stated that they could tell that the kid was unarmed. Alito wrote that when a suspect flees, that person gives police the power to shoot to kill at their discretion, whether or not the suspect actually poses a threat! The Knight-Ridder news service wrote that "Although Alito's opinions are rarely written with obvious ideology, he's seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big businesses." And, in a ruling that is being publicized by forces organizing against his nomination, Alito argued that it was acceptable for the cops to strip-search a 10-year-old girl who was riding in a car with her mother when the mother was accused of drug possession. Even though the search warrant said nothing about the girl, Alito ruled that it should be interpreted "broadly" enough to allow searching her. All this paints a sinister picture of someone who will be a reactionary, pivotal force on the Supreme Court. It gets worse. Reactionary Christian forces who openly call the constitutional separation of church and state a "myth" have launched heavily funded campaigns to mobilize their armies to demand the confirmation of Alito precisely on the basis that he is going to be a battering ram against the separation of church and state.1 Christian fascists are cranking up the volume on their "persecuted Christians" demogoguery, in close synchronization with the Alito nomination. Their web sites, speaking to their own forces, openly connect the campaigns to boycott retailers who have "happy holidays" campaigns (instead of explicitly religious celebrations of Christmas) with mobilizing support for Alito. Here, one has to stop to think about and confront what kind of hell on earth we'd be living in if the Christian fascists had their way. It's important to remind ourselves that the Bible--which these Christian theocrats demand be taken literally as the basis of the law of U.S. society--mandates the death penalty for things like homosexuality, rebellious children, and working on the sabbath! Channeling Discontent Democratic Senator Joe Biden made a widely circulated statement that there could possibly be a filibuster over Alito. Speaking of an application Alito wrote for a job in the Reagan administration, Biden said, "The part that jeopardizes it [Alito's nomination] more is his quotes in there saying that he had strong disagreement with the Warren Court particularly on reapportionment--one man, one vote." Biden went on, "The fact that he questioned abortion and the idea of quotas is one thing. The fact that he questioned the idea of the legitimacy of the reapportionment decisions of the Warren Court is even something well beyond that." By raising the prospect of filibuster, Biden is maneuvering to "keep hope alive" that the Democrats can be relied on to put up a fight over Alito. And, by narrowing the terms to the reapportionment issue, Biden is channeling the opposition into terms that concede massive ground. It's not that the reapportionment issue is insignificant. Overturning existing rules on how congressional districts are drawn contributes both to disenfranchising Black voters and to rigging up election districts that institutionalize a one-Party (Republican, obviously) state. But look again at how Biden is framing the fight. When he says, "the fact that [Alito] questioned abortion and the idea of quotas [more fundamentally court rulings that challenged overt, legal discrimination] is one thing..." he is saying that the Democrats are going to rule out throwing down over the right to abortion and opposing racial discrimination--questions at the heart of what kind of society this will be. And the theocracy issue is not even on Biden's list! At the same time, while the main thing going on here is the attempt of Biden and other Democrats to channel, confine, and curtail the resistance against Alito, there is also an aspect around reapportionment--where the Democrats see the Republicans moving further in an attempt to make the U.S. a one-party state--that could lead to clashes around the Alito hearings and nomination which could assume significance in the context of a larger resistance that did NOT confine itself to the terms and forms of struggle being pushed by the mainstream Democratic leadership and its allies. The Battle Against Alito and the Need to Drive out the Bush Regime To sum up: the Christian fascist forces have identified the Alito nomination as critical and pivotal to their agenda. They see Alito on the Supreme Court as a big part of cementing a new legal framework that represents an extremely serious attack on the people. In other words, this whole thing is bigger than Alito, and these fascists are fighting it with that perspective. On the "other side of the aisle," the Democrats are conceding massive ground, and are not even committed to filibuster. And even there, Republicans, including Senate leader Bill Frist, have threatened to not allow a filibuster. The only condition under which the Alito nomination can be defeated is the emergence of a large, politically aggressive movement, heading towards the State of the Union Address, that situates the Alito nomination in the larger context and that breaks out of the confines of lobbying and pressure groups. The only chance to defeat this deadly fascist agenda, and within that the Alito nomination that right now marks a crucial concentration of it, lies in throwing our all into building and struggling for a massive turnout at State of the Union to drive out the Bush Regime and its agenda, as called for by the World Can’t Wait initiative. [worldcantwait.org] As we have said time and again, the dynamic of allowing the terms to be set and the sides to be drawn by the top Democratic leaders is a deadly one that dooms the people to passivity and impotence, and can only serve to derail their struggle. We need instead a dynamic in which the terms are set by the struggle coming "from below," and every other major political force in society has to define itself in relation to that. There are millions and millions of people in this country who urgently want to defeat this nomination and, more than that, want to stop the whole course of things of which it is part. They must hear from those who can expose the full ugly dimensions of this program and offer a way to fight it that can actually bring into being that different dynamic, and set a whole different course that corresponds to the real interests and urgently felt aspirations of those millions. Enforcing Christmas as a Weapon for Theocracy A radio commercial running in Colorado, Wisconsin, and West Virginia (states whose senators are considered pivotal votes on Alito) is calling out the troops with this message: "It is the time of year when bedtime stories and television specials often recall the plucky reindeer and the little girl of Whoville who managed to save Christmas. This year, some conservative groups are hoping to add a new name to that pantheon of heroes: Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Supreme Court nominee.... Liberal groups like People for the American Way and the ACLU have opposed public Christmas and Hanukkah displays and even fought to keep Christmas carols out of school... Some courts and judges have supported this radical agenda, but not Judge Sam Alito." The ad continues, "Throughout his career, Judge Alito has consistently upheld the Constitution's protection of free religious expression." "This is going to be the dominant theme on the Alito nomination until the end of the year--the convergence of a Supreme Court nomination, the Christmas season, and a judge who has a well-staked-out position on support for religious expression," said Jay Sekulow. Who is Sekulow? In Contempt: How the Right is Wronging American Justice, Court TV reporter and former Republican Judge Catherine Crier quotes Sekulow saying that "Our public schools began as ministries of the Church … Now it is time to return them to the Lord." In that context, the agenda of the campaign to formally institute Christmas celebrations in public schools should be understood as part of the method Sekulow outlines (quoted in Contempt): "I've got an agenda if you will. I’m utilizing the courts to achieve that goal. You don't go from A to Z. You go from A to C, D to M, and eventually to Z." And it is critical to grasp that Sekulow is not just some isolated fascist theocrat. When not running his massively funded networks of Christian fundamentalists, Sekulow's web site describes him as "an adviser tapped by the White House to coordinate support for its nominees." Crier's book reveals that every week, Sekulow and other leading Christian theocrats hold a conference call to check on the progress of their agenda; with prominent members of the Bush administration (such as Karl Rove) often on the line. NOTE 1. Alito has not only ruled in favor of allowing governments to set up Nativity scenes, he ruled against a school district that wanted to prevent an evangelical group from sending fliers home to elementary school children. While Alito's arguments have also expressed the position that other religious expression (by Jews and Muslims) can be officially sponsored by government, these rulings can be understood as an expression of Alito's much touted skill at packaging a reactionary agenda in ways and terms that provide a "carefully argued" and "legally rigorous" approach. Return to Article Send us your comments.

Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie The "War" On Terrorism is a Total Fabrication The government's explanation of precisely who is the enemy has never been buttressed with facts that would stand up in a court of law. In the 2002 edition of his book The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Could The U.S. War On Terrorism Go Nuclear? Professor Francis Boyle describes how "the accounts provided by the United States government [of those responsible for the 9-11 bombings] simply do not add up." The Facts The October 3 edition of the New York Times recounted the definitive briefing by a US ambassador to NATO officials on the alleged facts as follows: One Western official at NATO said the briefings, which were oral, without slides or documents, did not report any direct order from Mr. Bin Laden, nor did they indicate that the Taliban knew about the attacks before they happened. A senior diplomat for one closely allied nation characterized the briefing as containing "nothing particularly new or surprising," adding: "It was rather descriptive and narrative rather then forensic. There was no attempt to build a legal case." In other words, there was no real case against Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Such was the conclusion of senior diplomats from friendly nations who attended the so-called briefing. The Powell/Blair White Paper Secretary of State Colin Powell publicly promised that they were going to produce a "White Paper" documenting their case against Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization concerning September 11. . . . What happened here? We never received a "White Paper" produced by the Untied States government as publicly promised by Secretary Powell, who was later overridden by President Bush Jr. What we got instead was a so-called White Paper produced by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Obviously, Blair was acting as Bush Jr's surrogate . . . -- neither an elected or administrative official of the U.S. government, not even an American citizen. Conveniently, no American could be brought to task for or even questioned about whatever errors of inadequacies Blair might purvey. The Powell/Blair White Paper fell into that hallowed tradition of a "White Paper" based upon insinuation, allegation, rumors, propaganda, lies, half-truths, etc. Even unnamed British government officials on an off-the-record basis admitted that the case against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would not stand up in court. And as a matter of fact the Blair/Powell White Paper was widely derided in the British news media. There was nothing there. [Note that the preamble to this white paper -- "Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States," 10/4/01 -- explicitly confirms Professor Boyle's assertion: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document."http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page3554.asp --DTR] The Cover-Ups Despite the clear import of the matter, the U.S. Congress has decided not to empanel a Joint Committee of the House and of the Senate with subpoena power giving them access to whatever hard evidence they want throughout any agency of the United States government -- including the National Security Council, FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA -- and also to put their Officials under oath to testify as to what happened and why under penalty of perjury. Obviously a cover-up is underway for the express purpose of not determining (1) who was ultimately responsible for the terrible attacks of 11 September 2001; and (2) why these extravagantly funded U.S. "intelligence" agencies were either unable or unwilling to prevent these attacks despite numerous warnings of a serious anti-American attack throughout the Summer of 2001 -- and yet, amazingly, could assert the identity of those responsible with such certainty in the space of hours thereafter as to preclude any serious investigation of other possible perpetrators. And for reasons not necessary to get into here, there is also an ongoing governmental cover-up of the obvious involvement of the Pentagon/CIA, or one of their contractors, in the anthrax attack upon the American People and all three Branches of the U.S. Federal Government.[61] In what follows, be mindful of the fundamental contradictions that misrepresent the very foundations of Bush II's purported "war" on terrorism. Our U.S. intelligence agencies, funded annually for decades with increasingly extravagant budgets, claim they were unable to prevent the 9-11 bombings due to the lack of correlated intelligence gathered. Yet within the span of less than a day, these same agencies asserted the identity of those responsible with such certainty as to preclude any serious investigation of other possible perpetrators. Whose interests are truly served by such investigations and their near instantaneous conclusions? How quickly the devils of yesterday become the discarded wraiths of today. A story by Reuters on August 20th described the current status of America's "Enemy Number One": "Bin Laden: from `Evil One' to Unmentionable One" [62]. What is the significance of bin Laden being reduced to an unmentionable status by government officials when less than a year ago his alleged presence in Afghanistan caused such massive firepower to be targeted where at least 3,767 innocent people were killed there by U.S. bombs between October and December? [63] Again, as taxpaying supporters of the United States second-to-none military, how do we reconcile our complicity in these deaths of innocents with the innocents who were killed one year ago in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania? When will enough people have been killed that more not need to be sacrificed on the altar of such justice? Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, is the editor of the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG).[64] He and others have written extensively on the interconnecting dimensions of what occurred before, during, and after the September 11th bombings and what these crimes against humanity have initiated. The CRG "is an independent research and media group of progressive writers, scholars and activists committed to curbing the tide of [corporate] `globalisation' and `disarming' the New World Order. The CRG webpage at globalresearch.ca based in Montréal publishes news articles, commentary, background research and analysis on a broad range of issues, focusing on the interrelationship between social, economic, strategic, geopolitical and environmental processes." [65] One of the areas relevant to the purported culpability of Osama bin Laden includes CRG-published articles detailing the long-time associations between the "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" (ISI is Pakistan's Military Intelligence) and the U.S. intelligence community, State Department and other federal agencies. Numerous sources substantiate these facts. In light of such research, one is left to deconstruct the purpose of the misrepresentations U.S. officials in the Pentagon and Bush II administration presented within hours after the bombings -- without supporting evidence -- that "Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects." "Corroborated by the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, US support funneled through the ISI to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden has been a consistent policy of the US Administration since the end of the Cold War: ``. . . [T]he United States has been part and parcel to supporting the Taliban all along, and still is let me add . . . You have a military government [of President Musharraf] in Pakistan now that is arming the Taliban to the teeth. . . . Let me note; that [uS] aid has always gone to Taliban areas . . . We have been supporting the Taliban, because all our aid goes to the Taliban areas. And when people from the outside try to put aid into areas not controlled by the Taliban, they are thwarted by our own State Department . . . At that same moment, Pakistan initiated a major resupply effort, which eventually saw the defeat, and caused the defeat, of almost all of the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.'' (US House of Representatives: Statement by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, Hearing of The House International Relations Committee on "Global Terrorism And South Asia", Washington, July 12, 2000.) "The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" is a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US government including the CIA are also a matter of public record." [66] The Clinton Administration supported what has been called the "Militant Islamic Network". A 1997 Congressional report provides evidence from official sources of the links between the Islamic Jihad and the US government.[67] In "Who Is Osama Bin Laden?" Chossudovsky outlines the history of Osama Bin Laden and the links of the Islamic "Jihad" to the formulation of US foreign policy during the Cold War and its aftermath.[68] In "OSAMAGATE" he describes how the main justification for the war we are now committed to has been totally fabricated. "`Now the Taliban will pay a price' vowed President George W. Bush, as American and British fighter planes unleashed missile attacks against major cities in Afghanistan. The US Administration claims that Osama bin Laden is behind the tragic events of the 11th of September. A major war supposedly "against international terrorism" has been launched, yet the evidence amply confirms that agencies of the US government have since the Cold War harbored the "Islamic Militant Network" as part of Washington's foreign policy agenda. In a bitter irony, the US Air Force is targeting the training camps established in the 1980s by the CIA. "The main justification for waging this war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future." [69] The consistently echoed claim of how 9-11 was the result of a massive U.S. `intelligence failure' is especially significant given the fact that "on the morning of September 11, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged `money-man' behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees." "The media's spotlight on `foreknowledge' and so-called `FBI lapses' served to distract public attention from the broader issue of political deception. Not a word was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, as part of its covert operations. "Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring. The `Islamic Brigades' are a creation of the CIA. In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an `intelligence asset'. Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to this date (2002) to participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the World.[2] These `CIA-Osama links' do not belong to a bygone era, as suggested by the mainstream media. "The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo.[3] More recently in Macedonia, barely a few months before September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries financed by Al Qaeda. Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation.[4] "The CIA keeps track of its `intelligence assets'. Amply documented, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts were always known.[5] Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the CIA.[6] In other words, there were no `intelligence failures'! In the nature of a well-led intelligence operation, the `intelligence asset' operates (wittingly or unwittingly) with some degree of autonomy, in relation to its U.S. government sponsors, but ultimately it acts consistently, in the interests of Uncle Sam. "While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress are fully cognizant of these links. "The foreknowledge issue focusing on `FBI lapses' is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive U.S. administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter) in support of the `Islamic Militant Base', is simply not mentioned. ". . . "In a bitter irony, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham, -- the men who hosted the mysterious September 11 breakfast meeting with the alleged `hijacker's high commander' (to use the FBI's expression), had been put in charge of the investigation and public hearings on so-called `intelligence failures'." [70] There are numerous documents, which prove beyond doubt the links between Al Qaeda and successive U.S. administrations. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html, May 2002, section 3. U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Republican Party Committee, Congressional Press Release, Congress, 16 January 1997, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html. See also Michel Chossudovsky, `Osamagate', Centre for Research on Globalisation, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html, 9 October 2001. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents, op. cit. section 3. See articles by Isabel Vincent, George Szamuely, Scott Taylor, Marina Domazetovska, Michel Chossudovsky, Umberto Pascali, Lara Marlowe and Macedonian dailies. See "Bin Laden Whereabouts Before 9-11," CBS Evening News with Dan Rather; CBS, 28 January 2002, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html and Alexandra Richard, "The CIA met bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai," Le Figaro. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html . The Boston Globe, 5 June 2002. How can Senator Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, be expected to exert any constitutionally meaningful oversight of the murky world and dealings of the U.S. intelligence community (and its relations to the equivalent in other governments), if he was having breakfast on 9-11 with the alleged money-man behind the 9-11 hijackers? [71] A May 5th CNN story is an example of the shell-games played in the press: the focus here is on bin Laden's connection to "Arab students taking aviation lessons." "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. authorities failed to recognize clues before September 11th about a potential terrorist attack, including an internal FBI memo that questioned whether Osama bin Laden was behind Arab students taking aviation lessons in the Unied States, a key Senate leader said Wednesday. "In an interview with CNN, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, said the House and Senate intelligence panels will hold hearings soon about various memos and reports, including one dubbed the Phoenix document, written by an FBI agent last summer. "A key question, Graham said, would be `why these dots weren't seen and connected. . . . We failed to put the puzzle together before the horrific event.'" [72] Either Senator Bob Graham is aware of General Mahmoud Ahmad's relationship to Mohammed Atta and is complicit with foreknowledge of the 9-11 bombings, or he is ignorant of this and is incompetent. Controlling the scope and limits of official investigations in the House and the Senate to minimized exposure of sensitive history is nothing new. It happened with the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in the late 1970s and with Iran Contra in the late 1980s.[73] John Judge, one of the cofounders of the National Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA), a network of independent researchers and investigators into the John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King assassinations,[74] has written extensively on the events of September 11th. In May he commented on the story of national security advisor Rice opposing a public panel to investigate 9-11. "They want to contain it to the House and Senate intelligence committees which they control. Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla), chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a longtime secrecy advocate . . . was actually promoted to run by Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Two boys from the state that brought us the current unelected President in the first place. The heads of these committees are traditionally awarded medals by the CIA for their `services'. "Past committees (Church, Pike) at all critical of the intelligence agencies are now fingered for the failures of 9-11 for supposedly taking away their ability to function. But intelligence gathering was never challenged or defunded, only intelligence activities, which were often illegal, unconstitutional and ill-advised." [75] A Washington Post article in July describing an "Independent 9-11 Commission Gaining Ground" prompted Judge's observation that the only kind of investigation that might succeed in this situation would be one that exists outside the U.S. government. "After living through the politicized debacle of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and even the Church Committee and the Ervin Committee attempts to get at the truth about intelligence dirty tricks, I have come to the conclusion that, like the Rockefeller Commission, it is mostly a case of asking the intelligence agencies to contemplate their own navels. "Not only are the oversight committees well-larded with [people like] Inouye and now those two stellar Floridians Bob Graham and Porter Goss (all of whom have gotten medals of commendation from the CIA itself), I don't think it is possible to use them to get at much of anything. They never do a full blown investigation, and if one starts to get close to the truth it is dismantled like the HSCA was, and put under control of the cover artists. They define the investigation at the start so narrowly it will never see the iceberg below the tip, and they go into closed session when anything really matters. "We are better off now calling for an independent Truth Commission outside the government. It has been amusing to watch the debate over using a Presidentially appointed blue-ribbon commission (like the Warren Commission) -- which was opposed by Senator Arlen Spector, who must know their shortcomings after inventing the single-bullet theory on JFK to get them out of their collision with the facts. "Recently I heard Senator Lieberman talking about this `independent, bipartisan' Congressional investigation in front of a rally of the victims' families who only want the truth not the government payoff. He said at one point that `security is the basis of all our other liberties'. He has it exactly backwards." [76] The claim that "security is the basis of all our other liberties" reminds us once more of Benjamin Franklin's assertion that those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Prompted by the dimensions of "Unresolved issues that need to be investigated" articulated on the Cooperative Research website, Judge reminds us of our ignored history providing necessary context to the United States involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s as well as tie-ins to officials indicted during Iran Contra many of whom are now in positions of significant power in Bush II. "More grist for the mill. Sources on Pakistani ISI head Mahmud Ahmad visiting US officials and wiring money to Mohammed Atta. Also meeting with Armitage, and Senators Graham, Biden and Rep. Goss, who are the `investigators'.[1, 2, 3] Also information on another ISI operative using opium profits to fund covert operations. "CIA's William Casey ran the Mujehaddin covert war against the Soviet union using the same funding methods. The opium production continues to date. Armitage was part of the Afghanistan operation, very close to it, and well known in Pakistan as well. Armitage was a Congtragate figure, close to North. Contragate was also an off-the-shelf drug-financed operation run by Casey. "The Contragaters are back in high official positions running this new game. Poindexter is now in charge of data mining computers and phone tapping; [1, 2, 3] Colin Powell moved the TOW missiles through Israel for sale to Iran at bargain prices; and Otto Reich and others were involved in the dirty Contra war (also drug financed). They are back in position now, with the same old agenda for control. "North was behind destroying detente with the `evil empire' USSR via KAL 007, he was the liason of the DOD to FEMA for martial law planning (a fact that had to go into `closed committee' during the investigation and came out being falsely denied), and North was behind the phony terrorism scenarios of the 80s, using Abu Nidal as the threat (recently `suicided') while North's company was selling Nidal arms. "Does it then make sense of the fact that Mohammed Atta was living in Sarasota, Florida with one of the Contragate pilots? Is this just Casey's unfinished legacy come to haunt us, using the same methods and even the same personnel in a new and improved scam? BCCI money floats around these same operations and Saudi billions. There is more work to be done to get at the bottom of all this." [77] In addition to the central question of who directed and was responsible for the airliner bombings of 9/11, when did the planning and preparation for the so-called war on terrorism actually occur? A great deal of data exists concerning the creation of favorable conditions for U.S. oil corporations to operate in central Asia. In 1997 Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote The Grand Chessboard -- American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives asserting "it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book." In 1998 John Maresca, Vice President, International Relations Unocal Corporation, testified before the House Committee On International Relations Subcommittee On Asia And The Pacific on three issues concerning Central Asia oil and gas reserves: "The need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas. The need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements within Russia, other newly independent states and in Afghanistan. The need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region." A 1999 RAND Corporation book, Countering the New Terrorism contains elements of the blueprint that has been openly embraced by Bush II since 9/11. News stories in the summer of 2001 indicate detailed planning for military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan to "take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest." A report commissioned by former US Secretary of State James Baker entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," and sponsored by Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations, was submitted to Cheney in April 2001. It argues that "the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma," with one of the "consequences" being a "need for military intervention" to secure its oil supply. Cheney was the president of Halliburton, an oil services industry provider. For nearly a decade, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice worked with Chevron, while Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans was CEO of Tom Brown, Inc, Denver-based oil and gas company. Many US officials now working on Bush II's Afghanistan policy also have extensive backgrounds in the world of multinational oil giants. A list of concentrated sources and key articles [78] provide details about the pre-9/11 advance planning and preparation for the so-called war on terrorism. Exploration of the background of the call for an American global imperium prior to 9/11 is included in the Official 9-11 Misrepresentations section. The facts and context of our secret, buried, or ignored history, are there: each of us can contribute our share of getting to the bottom of all this. Through omission as well as dissembling and deception, the context is woefully lacking. Ignoring that our elected and non-elected members of government would consciously and intentionally lie denies the lessons of history and of human nature. Where is the conflict-of-interest more heightened than at the seat of political power, within the biggest superpower on earth? The Atomic Energy Commission lethal deceptions (1950s and 60s), U-2 incident (1960), Bay of Pigs (1961), JFK assassination (1963), Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964), Martin Luther King assassination (1968), Robert Kennedy assassination (1968), Vietnam (1950s and 60s and 70s), Watergate (1972), overthrow of Chilean President Allende and his assassination (1973), Iran Contra (1980s), Looting of U.S. Savings and Loans Industry (1980s), Iraq-Iran war (1980s), Gulf War (1991), 2000 Presidential election . . . these events demonstrate how susceptible humans are to the corrupting influence of power and the belief that one's actions do not have to be publically accountable. As paralyzing as the enormity of what is happening may feel, there is a wealth of sources on which one can focus that provides a wider range of world views, facts, context, and analysis of what is happening and what is at stake including (but not limited to) the following: The Centre for Research on Globalisation has loads of articles and independent research in one place with links branching out to many related topics; both t r u t h o u t and CommonDreams provide "news center" sites with a rich tapestry of articles and analysis presenting a more representative world view of all our humanity; the Center For Cooperative Research is employing an experimental research framework for decentralized production and distribution of information goods -- includes a great deal of information that is methodical and academic; United Flight 93 Crash Theory Home Page - The Real Story of Flight 93 -- everything you wanted to know about Flight 93 can be found here; Antiwar.com -- note especially Justin Raimondo's Behind the Headlines column; Peter Dale Scott -- veteran writer focusing on the deep politics behind events and recently, drugs and oil connections to 9-11; Political analyst and human rights activist Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is published in Media Monitors; see his book, The War on Freedom, How and Why America was Attacked September 11, 2001 (July 2002); US government manipulation of perceptions: The Gatekeepers, The Progressive / Left establishment and the marginalization of conspiracy research - the debate begins in earnest; The War in Context - weekly weblog of mostly corporate media presenting alternative perspectives of the "war on terrorism" and Middle East conflict; Unanswered Questions: Thinking For Ourselves is compiling the many questions that need answering; the Emperor's Clothes independent analysis includes a listing of Articles On 9-11; CounterPunch -- a wide array of writers with analysis outside corporate America; Online Journal offers investigative reporting "building a new news media of, by and for the people"; The War Against Terrorism News, a vast array of global links updated weekly; Inter Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) - State Within A State is devoted to collecting stories on the ISI; A Timeline of Oil and Violence is well organized on the rush to grab Central Asia's oil.We are being told to accept an assemblage of facts that would not stand up in a court of law to prove the guilt of a man, bin Laden and his organization, that somehow succeeded in penetrating the most restricted airspace in the world approximately 55 minutes after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. These facts, while not sufficient to prevent the day that changed the world, nonetheless were more than sufficient to identify the culprit in less than the next 24 hours; who was then the justification for embarking on a war that, according to Dick Cheney, "may never end. At least, not in our lifetime" [79]; and who less than a year later has dropped off the world stage slowing down this lifetime war, on his behalf, not one iota. Whose interests are advanced by this monumental campaign to trade our liberty for security?

Bush Acknowledges Secret Surveillance By Scott Stearns Washington 17 December 2005 President Bush says he has authorized the secret surveillance of people within the United States without court-approved warrants. Mr. Bush says the eavesdropping has helped save American lives and will continue. George Bush delivers live radio address from the White HouseAfter a day of refusing to comment on allegations which first appeared in Friday's New York Times, President Bush Saturday acknowledged that he authorized the surveillance following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. He said that authorization was consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution and focused only on those with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations. "Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks," he said. "This is a highly-classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and our friends and allies." In a stern radio address delivered live from the White House Roosevelt Room, President Bush said media reports of the existence of the secret program have given America's enemies information they should not have. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk," said the president. "Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country." With Republicans and Democrats in Congress calling for investigations into whether the secret surveillance violated laws protecting American civil liberties, a defiant President Bush said it is his duty to make sure the eavesdropping continues. "This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives," said President Bush. "The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties, and that is exactly what I will continue to do so long as I am the President of the United States." President Bush said he has re-authorized the surveillance more than 30 times since the September 11 attacks. Each review, which happens about every 45 days, includes the Attorney General and White House Counsel as well as the General Counsel and Inspector General of the National Security Agency. Mr. Bush said Congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times about the NSA eavesdropping, and intelligence officials involved receive what he calls extensive training to ensure they follow both the letter and intent of his authorization. The NSA is America's premier electronic and satellite spy agency with a budget larger than the better-known Central Intelligence Agency. The revelation of the secret program came on the day that Republican leaders in the Senate were trying to pass the re-authorization of broad anti-terrorism laws known as the Patriot Act. That effort failed because Democrats, and some Republicans, argued that the legislation does not do enough to protect civil liberties. President Bush said blocking the Patriot Act is pure politics. "That decision is irresponsible and it endangers the lives of our citizens," he said. "The Senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to re-authorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment." Opponents of the Patriot Act say it gives the government too much power to conduct secret searches and obtain library and medical records. Sixteen of the act's major provisions are set to expire at the end of the year. President Bush says those powers must be extended because the terrorist threat to America will not expire in two weeks. http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-17-voa18.cfm

Well, it didn't exactly go without incident. Scattered attacks fail to disrupt Iraq vote Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:28 AM ET By Gideon Long and Michael Georgy BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis turned out in large numbers on Thursday for a largely peaceful election that sharply contrasted with a bloody polling day last January. Only scattered insurgent violence broke the general calm, unlike the January 30 vote for an interim assembly, when about 40 people died, many of them in nine quick-fire suicide bombings. A guard was killed and a policeman wounded by a bomb at a polling station in Mosul on Thursday, one of several blasts as polls opened at 7 a.m. (0400 GMT) in the northern city, where Sunni Arabs and Kurds are at daggers-drawn over power and territory. At the same time a mortar blast set off sirens in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone government and embassy compound. Two civilians and a U.S. Marine were treated for minor injuries, the U.S. embassy said. Mortars also broke the nationwide calm in Samarra and nearby Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's home town. An explosion rocked Ramadi, another bastion of Sunni Arab revolt. But in the most remarkable turnaround from the January 30 poll, people lined up to vote in the western city, determined to have a say in the new, fully empowered, four-year parliament. They had boycotted the first, U.S.-backed election in January. "I'm delighted to be voting for the first time because this election will lead to the American occupation forces leaving Ramadi and Iraq," said 21-year-old Jamal Mahmoud, reflecting a view common among voters across the sectarian divide. Bitter at the power exercised by an interim parliament of Shi'ite Islamists and Kurds, Sunni militants said they would defend polling stations in cities like Ramadi against groups, such as al Qaeda, who vowed to disrupt the vote. That truce, combined with sealed borders, a three-day ban on traffic and a mass presence of police and troops, with 160,000 Americans keeping discreetly in the background, made for a vote that could scarcely be more different from January. BALLOTS NOT BOMBS "Ballot boxes are a victory of democracy over dictatorship," said Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari as he cast his vote. "The real triumph is that people are casting ballots -- whoever they choose -- and that they've chosen voting over bombs." Hadi Mishaal, who was wounded in fighting for Saddam against Americans in 1991, and who hobbled 2 km (over a mile) on a crutch to vote in Baghdad with his wife, said: "I hope we can have a government that will help me and give me my rights." U.S. President George W. Bush hailed the expected turnout among Sunnis as a sign that nationalist insurgents were being drawn into a political dialogue that would marginalise diehard rebels -- Baathist followers of Saddam and al Qaeda Islamists. On the eve of the poll, just over 1,000 days after U.S. troops invaded to oust Saddam, Bush admitted he had gone to war on faulty intelligence. But he said he was still right to invade and urged Americans to be patient in helping Iraqis build a democracy. "We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator," he said. With opinion polls showing a majority of U.S. voters disapprove of his handling of the Iraq war, Bush is anxious to portray Iraq's election as a success for his strategy. Underlying the vote, in which Iraqis will choose from 231 electoral lists, is the potential for sectarian violence. In the holy city of Najaf, stronghold of the ruling Shi'ite Islamist Alliance's list No. 555, 40-year-old Abdullah Abdulzahra said: "I'll vote for 555 because they'll kill all Baathists." In the turbulent Sunni Arab Aadhamiya district of Baghdad, unemployed shoe salesman Ismail Dulaimi, 25, said: "This time it will be different for the Sunnis. We are voting. Now we have a government that only gives jobs to Shi'ites." In the northern, ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk, Hussein Garmiyani, dressed in traditional Kurdish clothes, smeared his own blood on the ballot, saying he was a victim of Saddam: "These past years were all years of blood and I signed for freedom with my blood," he said. ALLAWI Among Sunni Arabs, some Kurds and less religious Shi'ites, Iyad Allawi, Washington's choice as first post-Saddam prime minister in a transitional government, appeared to be picking up votes after a ubiquitous and slick media advertising campaign. The secular Shi'ite's strongman image and vision of economic revival after a year of disappointment were going down well across the sectarian divide, strengthening his hope of returning to lead a coalition. Joking with reporters after casting his ballot in the Green Zone, the former doctor's style was in marked contrast to the somber Jaafari: "We hope to see a formation of a strong government that can ... represent the main communities and be a government of national salvation," Allawi said. Some 15 million Iraqis can vote at over 6,000 poll places. "There is a quiet confidence that things are going to go well," U.N. envoy to Iraq Ashraf Qazi told Reuters on the eve of a poll which the U.N. and Washington hope will serve as an example to other Middle East states moving toward democracy. Despite voters having to walk to vote, turnout could be high -- perhaps even 70 percent compared with 58 percent in January and 64 percent in October's constitutional referendum. There are no reliable opinion polls but observers expect the Shi'ite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) share of the vote to fall, from the 48 percent it won in January to perhaps about 40 percent. The Kurds are predicted to win about 25 percent of the vote, and may be pushed hard for second place by Allawi. (Additional reporting by Ahmed Rasheed, Luke Baker, Alastair Macdonald, Omar al-Ibadi, Mariam Karouny, Hiba Moussa and Mussab al-Khairalla in Baghdad, Aref Mohammed in Kirkuk, Ammar al- Alwani in Ramadi, Khaled Farhan in Najaf and Deepa Babington in Mosul) http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-12-15T092756Z_01_FOR344623_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml

Translation: Yeah. I know you smoke cock. Keep puffing.

Where's the outrage from the "blame the liberal media first" crowd?

You're not defending America. You're defending Bush. Nazi fag! Too bad Bush won't get his provisions renewed. He got owned by the senate.. hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! fuck you fuck bush have a shitty weekend.

morons.

http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showpost.php?p=2883184&postcount=3 FAGS!!

................................

Mr President, you have been owned!!! WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the nation’s top anti-terror law as infringing too much on Americans’ privacy, dealing a major defeat to President Bush and Republican leaders. In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill’s Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47. Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and GOP congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the 16 expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries. Story continues below ↓ advertisement Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn’t enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won’t accept a short-term extension of the law. If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31. Investigators will still be able to use those powers to complete any investigation that began before the expiration date, according to a provision in the original law. “Our nation cannot afford to let these important counterterrorism tools lapse,†Gonzales said on Friday. CLICK FOR RELATED STORIES No comment from Bush on domestic spying Analysis: Are wartime measures being abandoned?Frist changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won’t approve it and the president won’t sign it. “We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act,†Frist warned. ‘Vital tools’ in the war on terror If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year’s midterm elections. “In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment,†White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. “The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come.†But the Patriot Act’s critics got a boost Friday from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. “I don’t want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care,†said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001. “It is time to have some checks and balances in this country,†shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “We are more American for doing that.†Most of the Patriot Act — which expanded the government’s surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers — was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. Making the rest of it permanent was a priority for both the Bush administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the year. Compromise reached earlier The House on Wednesday passed a House-Senate compromise bill to renew the Act that supporters say added significant safeguards to the law. These supporters predict doom and gloom if the Patriot Act’s critics win and the provisions expire. “This is a defining moment. There are no more compromises to be made, no more extensions of time. The bill is what it is,†said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. “Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit (of) ... a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security,†said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H. They suggested a short extension so negotiations could continue, but the Senate scrapped a Democratic-led effort to renew the USA Patriot Act for just three months before the vote began. “Today, fair-minded senators stood firm in their commitment to the Constitution and rejected the White House’s call to pass a faulty law,†said Caroline Fredrickson, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative office. “This was a victory for the privacy and liberty of all Americans.†NBC News contributed to this report http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10485860/ Eat it igloo, dr logic, got milk, raver, eccentrichomo and the rest of you nazi loving sociopaths. YOU HAVE BEEN OWNED!! You can kiss your "I hate America act" goodbye!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!1

You're not defending America. You're defending Bush. Nazi fag!