destruction

'Code Pink' protestors target Walter Reed Medical Center Friday, August 26, 2005 This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," August 25, 2005, that has been edited for clarity. Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET! ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Our top story tonight, controversy has erupted over antiwar protests outside Walter Reed Army Medical Center (search) in Washington, D.C. The hospital has treated more than 4,000 patients since the war in Iraq began. Now, CNSnews.com (search) has provided us with this exclusive video showing protestors demonstrating last Friday evening during visitor’s hours for wounded soldiers and their families. The antiwar group, Code Pink (search), calls the gathering a vigil and says their goal is increased veteran benefits, or to get them increased. Joining us now, from CNSnews.com is Marc Morano and from Code Pink, Laura Costas. Laura, let me go to you. I've heard conservative web sites misrepresent this and basically say that you're protesting the soldiers in the hospital. That's not what's going on. Let's set the record straight. LAURA COSTAS, CODE PINK: That's correct. That's definitely not what's going on. We're not protesting anything. It is a vigil. That's what we call it, because that's what we do. We stand out there, and we hold up signs, as you saw, that say, "Support veterans benefits" and "Fund the wounded, not the war." So, yes, thank you for clarifying that. We're not protesting anything. COLMES: Marc, what this is about, really, is you have a situation where we're given the impression there's no sacrifice. They don't want to show returning flag-draped coffins. We're given the sense that there's no sacrifice for this war. They have people coming into the hospital at night. You don't even see the wounded going into the hospital. And that's what Code Pink is trying to point out to the American public. MARC MORANO, CNSNEWS.COM: Well that may have been their original purpose back in March when they started this. But over the summer and last Friday night, that's not what was going on. When you've seen signs like "Maimed for a Lie" that the wounded soldiers come in and out of the main entrance at Walter Reed Hospital, that's hard to say they're putting on a vigil. They don't like the word "protest." I heard chanting that night that George Bush — last Friday night — "George Bush Kills American Soldiers." At the same time... COSTAS: May I make a comment here? COLMES: Hold on, let him finish and then you can comment. MORANO: At the same time, soldiers with prosthetic arms were walking in and out of the entrance. How do you call chants like that a vigil? It just doesn't make sense. COLMES: All right, Laura, there's nothing wrong with protesting. But what do you say in response to Marc's statements about some of the things said at this event? COSTAS: Well, actually, anybody can walk up and say anything they like because it's out on the sidewalk. So we don't really have a whole lot of control over who says what. If somebody is saying something that we feel is inappropriate, we tell them please to be quiet. But I don't think that anybody should have a problem with that sign right there that says "Funding for the wounded, and not for the war." And we've gotten a lot of support from the people inside the gates at Walter Reed. We have people that come out and thank us for our presence, families come out. My brother served in Iraq. He was there for 14 months. So I'm a military family member. I know what it's like to have somebody over there. COLMES: Marc, anytime there's a protest... COSTAS: And if, you know, we weren't getting the support from the soldiers and their families, we wouldn't be there. (CROSSTALK) COLMES: Marc, anytime there's a protest, there's going to be extremists who, on either side, just like the Minutemen (search) may have people joining them who are racist, that doesn't mean the Minutemen themselves, or the core group, is racist. And you want to tie every extremist here — you want to tie every extremist to the core group that's having this demonstration. MORANO: This isn't about cherry-picking an extremist or two. This was the message of the group. COSTAS: No, that's incorrect. MORANO: Steve McCarron, who was on this network, Steve McCarron, from Veterans for Peace (search), who was on this network earlier today... COSTAS: You've got his name wrong, sir. You've got his name wrong. He's a member of Veterans for Peace. I know him personally. SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: All right, I want to set a bigger picture — hang on... MORANO: Well, let's not talk about pronunciation of names. He's... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: All right, Laura and Marc, hang on one second. I want to give our audience a bigger picture of what's going on here, Marc, because, clearly what's happening here is Code Pink and the protesters are backtracking because of the video that you've had, the pictures that you've taken, and what you've been able to report. In fact, they can now say it's a vigil all they want, but when they have signs that say "Impeach George Bush," "Maimed for Lies," "Enlist Here and Die For Halliburton," I mean, these are guys in the hospital back from war. They often have life-threatening wounds. COSTAS: And they might be abandoned by the V.A. by the time they get out of there. (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: This is for Marc Morano. (CROSSTALK) COSTAS: Who are you telling who it's about? I'm there on the corner almost every Friday night. I know what it's about. MORANO: Well, I talked to Kevin Pannell (search), one of the wounded soldiers, a double-amputee who lost both legs in Iraq last year. He said he tried to ignore these protesters at first, until he saw some of the outrageous things. One of the things he said he saw was caskets out there, mock caskets. COSTAS: No, no, I'm sorry, that never happened. MORANO: I have another protestor, counter-protestors saw black wreaths hanging on the fence. (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: I want you both to be quiet. I want to get a question in here. Marc, wait a minute, because we have the video. They can say this is a vigil all they want. But we have the video. MORANO: It's an argument over semantics. (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: Wait a minute. Both of you, please. We have the video, "Maimed for Lies," "Impeach Bush," "Enlist Here and Die for Halliburton." And you know, Laura, you can deny this all you want, but soldiers are literally fighting for their lives and you don't have enough respect for them... COSTAS: My brother was over there. My brother was over there. HANNITY: You are exploiting — you are so extreme. COSTAS: Excuse me, I'm not exploiting anyone. HANNITY: You have no respect for those guys that are trying to heal in that hospital. COSTAS: No way. We are supporting them. We would like for them to have all the benefits that they need when they leave Walter Reed. HANNITY: Then why don't you say benefits and stop putting up signs that say "Impeach Bush." COSTAS: We do that. We do that. HANNITY: Why are you politicizing the war in front of guys that suffered for you? COSTAS: This war is absolutely political. It's absolutely political. HANNITY: So it's not a vigil; it is a protest. COSTAS: It is a vigil. MORANO: The veterans I spoke with aren't upset about whether you're for the war or against the war. It's about location, location. Why are they in front of a military hospital, timed for maximum exposure on Friday night... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: All right. Let me ask Marc Morano, because we're short on time. Marc, I guess what's really — this is what was so clear about your report, is that clearly they have been caught here, that they have so little respect for our soldiers. COSTAS: No, no, no, no, no. HANNITY: And they're — even their recovery time... COSTAS: I'm sorry. We have nothing but respect for our soldiers. We are the soldiers. Veterans for Peace is one of the... (CROSSTALK) HANNITY: Laura... MORANO: Laura has to talk to Veterans for Peace. On your own network earlier today, you had a member on, Steven McCarron, or however she wants me to pronounce his last name, that he was defending "Maimed for a Lie" and other things. COSTAS: You have his first name wrong, too. You don't have your facts straight on the guy that you interviewed, so I'm not sure how accurate the rest of your report is. HANNITY: Laura, why don't you — you have every right to protest as much as you want. COSTAS: Yes, I do. That's right. I do. That's what my brother's over there fighting for. HANNITY: Here's my question. COSTAS: Right? HANNITY: You have every right to do it. It's about — I'm questioning your taste. Why don't you take your protest and your free speech rights... COSTAS: FOX News is questioning my taste? That's a good one. HANNITY: ... and stop sticking it in the face of people that have suffered enough. Why don't you take it elsewhere? COSTAS: Sir, if you would like to come to our vigil and really see what it is and leave the, you know, your hype behind... HANNITY: "Maimed for Lies"? "Maimed for Lies"? COSTAS: Well, you know, if that's how somebody feels about it, they're entitled to that. I'm not... HANNITY: "Enlist Here and Die for Halliburton"? You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Laura. It's disgraceful that you don't respect these men more. They gave you the right to say that. COSTAS: My brother was one of those men, sir. HANNITY: You do not respect these injured soldiers. COSTAS: My brother was one of them. HANNITY: It's disgraceful. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. COSTAS: My brother was one of them. Can you say that? HANNITY: You ought to be ashamed. (CROSSTALK) COLMES: ... free speech that people are dying for. Thank you both very much for being with us. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167017,00.html

Translation:

BTW. That letter you posted is not genuine. After research it is conclusive the Iraqi Freedom Fighters organization is non existant. Like your brain.

Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition need to assassinate the real terrorist threat. Themselves.

Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition need to assassinate the real terrorist threat. Themselves.

Pat Robertson and the Christian need to assassinate the real terrorist threat. Themselves.

It really shows how immature he really is.

Translation:

Neither do you.

Translation:

Since you want this war so much you must go fight it or you are an America hating chickenhawk pussy. You have 2 choices. Enlist or rally behind Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and the anti war front.

Since you want this war so much you must go fight it or you are an America hating chickenhawk pussy.

By Carla Binion Online Journal Associate Editor Download a .pdf file for printing.Adobe Acrobat Reader required. Click here to download a free copy. August 28, 2005—George W. Bush once joked before a Gridiron crowd, "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones I have to concentrate on." That offhand joke accurately describes how Bush gains support for his Iraq policy. Mainstream media commentators sometimes help Bush fool the public. They often parrot Bush's talking points as if they were "news" and let his outright lies go unquestioned. When it comes to the Cindy Sheehan story, some mainstream reporters still allow Bush to frame the debate in deceptive ways. When media pundits claim the lies that got us into the Iraq war no longer matter, and that all that currently counts is what we do from here on in Iraq, they miss an important point. Bush keeps peddling the exact same falsehoods as if they'd never been disproved, and he continues to use them in ways that do deadly harm. It's now common knowledge among well-informed Americans Bush misled the country about WMD, the imaginary link between Iraq and 9/11, and his shifting rationales for the Iraq invasion. The anti-reality Bush administration still tries to fool the public (or to concentrate their propaganda on the people who can be fooled all of the time) by repeatedly insinuating there really is a link between Iraq and 9/11, and by continuing to try to sell other such fairy tales. The mainstream media help Bush by failing to forcefully challenge him each and every time he tries to peddle the same old lies. They assist in fooling the easily fooled folks by failing to pose tough questions. Bush gets away with repeating the tired line: "We have to fight terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here at home." The media should question this Mother of All Non Sequiturs every time it comes up. By what Mad Hatter "logic" could our fighting a few terrorists in Iraq prevent a few others from doing dirty work here? Does Bush expect us to believe such people would be so distracted by Iraq they couldn't send a few bad guys our way while simultaneously fighting there? When Bush claims U.S. presence in Iraq somehow makes Americans freer, why won't reporters ask: "Exactly how has invading Iraq—or how could it even potentially—increase our freedom here? Since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, was no more a 'terrorist haven' than many other countries we did not invade, and had no known intention of attacking us, by what stretch of the imagination are Americans freer or safer now that we've invaded?" Why won't mainstream media make every effort to correct the public's misperceptions about the war? When Bush supporters trump up fake grassroots (AstroTurf) protests, why do mainstream media commentators play along with the pretense? The anti-Cindy Sheehan group called "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy," is being promoted by the Republican PR firm, Russo March & Rogers, backed group, Move America Forward (MAF). Right-wing talk show host, Melanie Morgan, is an MAF vice chair. (For more on this, see Diane Farsetta's " Moving America One Step Forward and Two Steps Back." Morgan has appeared on TV news programs, including Chris Mathews' Hardball on MSNBC, and she's managed to get away with selling her anti-Sheehan group as one that originated spontaneously from the bottom up, from ordinary people, with no push from a top-down PR firm. The problem is not that media commentators never help dispel the Bush deceptions. They just don't do it consistently or vigorously enough to constitute their taking a firm stand behind the facts. Their hit and miss, piecemeal truth-telling conveys to the people among us who are easy to fool the false notion that Bush's anti-reality propaganda about Iraq is simply another legitimate side of the debate. When reporters sometimes state the truth—for example that there's no link between Iraq and 9/11—and at other times let Bush or his supporters slip in the implication there is a legitimate link, it appears the media can't make up its mind between fiction and reality. If a commentator confirms what all the factual evidence shows about Iraq in one breath, but in the next breath gives equal credence to the idea the U.S. is in Iraq to protect American freedom, that commentator is no more reality-based than is the Bush administration. No wonder Bush can fool some of the people all of the time. The mainstream media won't firmly and consistently set the record straight. In his Aug. 25 article, " Will News Media Help Bush Exploit the 9/11 Anniversary Again," journalist Norman Solomon writes that the upcoming fourth anniversary of 9/11 will give the Bush administration many media opportunities to falsely connect the rationale for the Iraq war with 9/11. Solomon points out that often "the propaganda tag-team of government and media has conveyed implicit lies as actual facts." He notes the media let Bush get away with saying on Sept. 11, 2003, "what our enemies have begun, we will finish." While one network reporter explained that Bush "had the Iraqi leader in mind," no one bothered to remind the public that equating the "enemies" who have allegedly "begun" the conflict (purportedly al Qaeda) with a "finish" in Iraq amounts to an outright lie. As Solomon says, "with routine assistance from news coverage, the Bush administration touts the U.S. war effort in Iraq as a legitimate response to what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. With the White House now desperate to shore up its sinking political fortunes, a vast amount of such propaganda is on the horizon." Lincoln said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." He probably had no idea a deceitful future president would fool roughly 40 percent of the people into supporting an illegal war of aggression based entirely on lies. Is it possible Chris Mathews, Wolf Blitzer and all the other network reporters are unaware that their allowing Bush to mislead the nation into an unjust war makes them largely responsible for every soldier killed in that war? Could it be those in mainstream media simply don't know the consequences of their failure to "un-fool" the many Americans Bush has concentrated on fooling? When Bush-supporting mothers say they happily send their sons to die in Iraq "for our freedom," don't reporters feel remotely obliged to point out in some tactful manner that factual reality opposes the notion that the Iraq war relates to securing America's freedom? Thanks to the Downing Street Memos and other solid sources, most facts are now in regarding Iraq, yet many in mainstream media behave as if these facts are still up for debate. Cindy Sheehan's critics have claimed her son, Casey, and other soldiers volunteered to fight of their own free will and that Cindy and other soldiers' families, therefore, have no room to complain. Media commentators often fail to mention that many American soldiers volunteered based on Bush's misleading rhetoric, and I've never heard anyone in mainstream media admit they helped further the Bush lies. With the Republican PR firm's "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" group on the march, and with the 9/11 anniversary's propaganda blitz on the horizon, it would be good to have a few people of conscience in mainstream media cut through all the impending bull. If they did, maybe Bush would fool fewer of the people and fool them less of the time, and maybe some lives would be saved in the process. http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/082805Binion/082805binion.html

Leak shows Blair told of Iraq war terror link · Top official warned in 2004 of British Muslim anger · Secret document said UK seen as 'crusader state' Read the document here Martin Bright, home affairs editor Sunday August 28, 2005 The Observer The Foreign Office's top official warned Downing Street that the Iraq war was fuelling Muslim extremism in Britain a year before the 7 July bombings, The Observer can reveal.Despite repeated denials by Number 10 that the war made Britain a target for terrorists, a letter from Michael Jay, the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary, to the cabinet secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull - obtained by this newspaper - makes the connection clear. The letter, dated 18 May 2004, says British foreign policy was a 'recurring theme' in the Muslim community, 'especially in the context of the Middle East peace process and Iraq'. 'Colleagues have flagged up some of the potential underlying causes of extremism that can affect the Muslim community, such as discrimination, disadvantage and exclusion,' the letter says. 'But another recurring theme is the issue of British foreign policy, especially in the context of the Middle East peace process and Iraq. 'Experience of both ministers and officials ... suggests that ... British foreign policy and the perception of its negative effect on Muslims globally plays a significant role in creating a feeling of anger and impotence among especially the younger generation of British Muslims.' The letter continues: 'This seems to be a key driver behind recruitment by extremist organisations (e.g. recruitment drives by groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and al Muhajiroon). The FCO has a relevant and crucial role to play in the wider context of engagement with British Muslims on policy issues, and more broadly, in convincing young Muslims that they have a legitimate and credible voice, including on foreign policy issues, through an active participation in the democratic process.' Al Muhajiroon, formed by Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical preacher who fled Britain after the 7 July bombings, was a recruiting organisation for young Islamic extremists in Britain. Attached to the letter is a strategy document, also obtained by The Observer, which reveals further concerns. It says Britain is now viewed as a 'crusader state', on a par with America as a potential target. 'Muslim resentment towards the West is worse than ever,' the document, 'Building Bridges with Mainstream Islam', says. 'This was previously focused on the US, but the war in Iraq has meant the UK is now seen in similar terms - both are now seen by many Muslims as "Crusader states". 'Though we are moving on from a conflict to a reconstruction phase in Iraq, there are no signs of any moderation of this resentment. Our work on engaging with Islam has therefore been knocked back. Mr O'Brien [then a Foreign Office minister] has expressed his concern.' However, all mention of the Iraq connection to extremism was removed from 'core scripts' - briefing papers given to ministers to defend the government's position on Iraq and terror. The document begins: 'We do not see the Muslim community as a threat. Muslims have always made, and continue to make, a valuable contribution to society.' The lines to be used by ministers include measures designed to address Muslim concerns, such as the introduction of religious hatred legislation and tackling educational underachievement among Muslims. But there is nothing to address the concerns raised by Jay eight months earlier. The documents reveal deep divisions at the heart of government over home-grown religious extremism and its connections to British intervention in Iraq. The Prime Minister has consistently said that the bombers were motivated not by a sense of injustice but by a 'perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam'. Although Iraq was clearly used as a pretext by extremists, he said he believed it was ideology that drove them to kill. To press home the point, Downing Street issued a list of atrocities carried out before intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. The claim was later undermined by the MI5, which said that Iraq was the 'dominant issue' for Islamic extremists in Britain. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, also rowed back from his comments immediately after the bombings that there was no connection with Iraq and the terror threat after it became clear that the public remained unconvinced. But Jay's letter shows that the Foreign Office was convinced that foreign policy played a key role in radicalising young Muslims. The letter outlines a list of 11 'work streams' to discourage extremism. They included delegations to the Islamic world, ministerial briefings for key members of the Muslim community and receptions to mark key Muslim festivals. It is not known how Turnbull responded to the letter, although it is clear that, by January, there was a significant difference between what was being said within the Foreign Office and what ministers were officially being permitted to say in speeches. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten last night called on the government to come clean about the link between extremism among British Muslims and anger about Iraq: 'For the government to deny a link between the war in Iraq and dismay among the Muslim community is ridiculous. But to try to cover it up, when senior civil servants have recognised the seriousness of the resentment, is even worse.' · Read the document here

http://johnconyers.com/vertical/Sites/%7BEF00C507-612C-4BA3-84C0-446C97F7E413%7D/uploads/%7BF868F974-9851-4F48-9B0D-7B4C336C6109%7D.MP3

http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca20win15004/vaprotest512K.wmv

Enjoy your award zipperhead.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7267.shtml

Translation

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7267.shtml