Saturday, July 29, 2006


CLICK HERE FOR NO, FEEL GOOD WARM FUZZIES to be found...only doom!

Does anyone believe the next sentence to be true? George W. Bush and his merry band of neocons are responsible for THE CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Well there is more than an ounce of truth in it. First of all their lack of diplomacy is not a mistake, it is a premeditated plan. Since Bush and his minions believe themselves to be ruler of the only superpower, this neocon belief transpires into an HALLUCINATORY HUBRIS that they are also ... THE RULERS OF THE WORLD!

What is happening in the Middle East between Israel and Lebanon is the REARING OF A UGLY NEOCON HEAD which Bush and his lot would really
rather hide. The ugly head is their plan to allow wars and killings to
continue (perhaps even sit on the sideline and root as if it were a sports game between two rival teams) and not even attempt a gesture at calling for a cease fire so that international intermediators can calmly look at the whole picture. In fact, they want anything "international" TO STAY OUT OF THE WARS THEY'VE CHEERED ON.

In the meantime, the barbarous killing and maiming continue on and on as if there is some magic number of dead that will have to be reached before one should step in and call a halt! To them, Collateral Damage is only "LAMENTABLE" (as Dubya's spokesman Tony Snow puts it ...follow this link to hear him say it: OR CLICK HERE)

(LAMENTABLE adj. Inspiring or deserving of lament or regret)

Question to G. W. Bush:: How many Iraq citizens have died in this war? G. W. Bush replies: "Umm. I would say 30,000 more or less…"

The sadness is great and the sorrow is felt throughout the whole world as the mayhem continues and Bush's cabal go about their daily routines of breathing, eating, bathing, purging, in other words ... LIVING LIFE IN THEIR IVORY TOWERS WHILE THE WORLD BURNS AND THE CHILDREN DIE!!! thinkingblue

CLICK PICTURE TO GO TO SITEPS: Paul Krugman's article (below) is so very sad but an eye opener...
IS THERE ANY HOPE FOR US...?? When will the human being stop behaving like a child who will listen to lies and believe them??? We have the Internet FOR PETE'S SAKE...!!! Don't listen FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF WHAT LIES AND TRUTHS ARE OUT THERE... But, then again, even with this wonderful asset the "ROSE COLORED GLASSES" BREED will only look for WHAT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD... But one day, there will be no FEEL GOOD WARM FUZZIES to be found...only destructive doom! thinkingblue

The New York Times
July 28, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist
Reign of Error

Amid everything else that's going wrong in the world, here's one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005.

Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.

At one level, this shouldn't be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don't like have been established, whether it's the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole.

But it's dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.

Here's how the process works.

First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue of stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq officials refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Sometimes the officials simply lie. The tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive and reduced income inequality, Edward Lazear, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave.

Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice's response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.(Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it's still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did
know about it.) But,as she went on, that's a very narrow
definition of what caused Sept. 11.

Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It's hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag.

Many of my correspondents are living in a world in which the economy is better than it ever was under Bill Clinton, newly released documents show that Saddam really was in cahoots with Osama, and the discovery of some decayed 1980's-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

(Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)

Some of my correspondents have even picked up on claims, mostly disseminated on right-wing blogs, that the Bush administration actually did a heck of a job after Katrina.

And what about the perceptions of those who get their news from sources that aren't de facto branches of the Republican National Committee?

The climate of media intimidation that prevailed for several years after 9/11, which made news organizations very cautious about reporting facts that put the administration in a bad light, has abated. But it's not entirely gone. Just a few months ago major news organizations were under fierce attack from the right over their supposed failure to report the 'good news' from Iraq and my sense is that this attack did
lead to a temporary softening of news coverage, until the extent of the carnage became undeniable. And the conventions of he-said-she-said reporting, under which lies and truth get equal billing, continue to work in the administration's favor.

Whatever the reason, the fact is that the Bush administration continues to be remarkably successful at rewriting history. For example, Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let U.N. inspectors in. His most recent statement to that effect was only a few weeks ago. And he gets away with it. If
there have been reports by major news organizations pointing out that that's not at all what happened, I've missed them.

It's all very Orwellian, of course. But when Orwell wrote of a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past, he was thinking of totalitarian states.

Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a democratic nation with a free press?>


Subject: Re: Some truth in the rubble
Saturday, July 29th at 8PM (EST)
C-SPAN has confirmed that their coverage of the 9/11 +The Neo-Con Agenda Panel Discussion will air on C-SPAN1 on July 29th at 8PM (EST). The panel features incredible presentations by 9/11 Scholars for Truth founder James Fetzer, BYU Physics Professor StevenJones, President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF,ret., Filmmaker and Radio Broadcaster Alex Jones, andTerrorism Expert Webster Tarpley.

The appearance of this discussion on the nation’s premiere public affairs cable network is an incredible boon to the 9/11 Truth Movement. None of the 9/11 Truth events that C-SPAN has covered in the past areas hard-hitting as the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agendaprogram. This panel discussion cuts to the heart of the issue and exposes the events of September 11th,2001 as a complex premeditated plot carried out by criminal elements within the U.S. Government as a pretext for launching the endless “War on Terror” in which the globe is currently embroiled. C-SPAN’s coverage of this pivotal information will bring considerable national attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement. It will also lend further credibility to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the premiere organization within the movement for peer-reviewed scientific research on 9/11 issues.

Each member of the panel brought their own particular perspective and expertise to the discussion while each maintained throughout their comments that 9/11 was an“inside job.”

Alex Jones, a progenitor of the 9/11 Truth Movement introduced the panel and acted as moderator. Professor Steven E. Jones, an expert in Physics, re-capped his vital new research which has conclusively proven that demolition incendiaries were used to bring down World Trade Center and could have only been placed there in advance of 9/11.

As a Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota and a former Marine Corps officer, James Fetzer cut through the myths surrounding the 9/11 hijackers. Former Air Force Interceptor Pilot Robert Bowman brought up the lack ofair defense on the day of 9/11 and shed light on the slough of drills conducted on 9/11 to distract the military and prevent Flights 11 & 77 from being shotdown.

Finally Author and Historian Webster Tarpley tied all of the information together to paint a picture of 9/11. He described the drills, Bush’s actions and the blow-by-blow details of that fateful day that revealed what could only be called the horrible truth of a conspiracy fact.

It is crucial that everyone see this historic panel discussion on C-SPAN. Tell your friends and family, email colleagues, and post links on message boards.This is an incredible step in spreading the word about the truth about 9/11.
The program will air on C-SPAN 1 at 8PM EST (7PM CST)on Saturday, July 29th and then air again for the WestCoast at 11pm EST (10pm CST).


Also read:
In State's Lebanon Lingo, No 'Evacuees'

Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A17

"Evacuation" apparently is a dirty word at the State Department. We're told
that during deliberations at Foggy Bottom about getting Americans out of
Lebanon, it was decided that "evacuation" was too negative -- and of course
it erroneously implied the notion of ferrying people in a dangerous place to

And let's also probe Bush's unchecked power which play a large part in our world's INSANITY! THINKINGBLUE
Tomgram: David Cole on How the Supreme Court Struck Back

This post can be found at

Last week Attorney General Alberto J. Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the President had personally shut down a Justice Department investigation into the domestic eavesdropping program being run by the National Security Agency. According to Neil Lewis of the New York Times,

"Mr. Gonzales made the assertion in response to questioning from Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the committee. Mr.Specter said the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Justice Department had to call off an investigation into the conduct of department lawyers who evaluated the [NSA] surveillance program because the unit was denied clearance to review classified documents.

"'Why wasn't O.P.R. given clearance as so many other lawyers in the Department of Justice were given clearance?' Mr. Specter asked.

"Mr. Gonzales replied, ‘The president of the United States makes decisions about who is ultimately given access," and he added that the president ‘makes the decision because this is such an importantprogram."

It was the first time in its thirty-one year history that investigators fromthe OPR, who regularly conduct
into executive branch programs involving the highest levels of classified information," were blocked from doing so.

An anonymous "senior Justice Department official" offered the following explanation to Lewis: "We had to draw the line somewhere" -- one of those classic descriptions that should have been in the headline, not deep in the piece. For the most secretive dministration in American history, even the anonymity of the source was perfect. The only inaccuracy in the line was that splendidly placed "somewhere." As on every other issue of legal, ethical, or constitutional import, this administration never draws the line "somewhere"; it always draws its line at the same place -- the place, to be exact, which gives the commander-in-chief presidency that is this administration's heart and soul the most possible power and denies power most outrageously to any other branch of, or agency of, government (except, of course, the Pentagon).

Recently, though, one of those branches refused to accept the administration's "somewhere" in the sand and instead drew some rather striking lines of its own. David Cole, law professor and author of Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism, offers a canny and vivid account of how the Supreme Court drew those lines, challenging an administration that, until recently, brooked no challenge. Thanks to the kindness of the editors of the New York Review of Books in whose most recent issue this piece appears, Cole's essay is now posted here. Tom

Why the Court Said No

By David Cole

[This piece, which appears in the August 10, 2006 issue of the New York Review of Books, is posted here with the kind permission of the editors of that magazine.]

Since the first few days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has taken the view that the President has unilateral, unchecked authority to wage a war, not only against those who attacked us on that day, but against all terrorist organizations of potentially global reach. The administration claims that the President's role as commander in chief of the armed forces grants him exclusive authority to select "the means andmethods of engaging the enemy." And it has interpreted that power in turn to permit the President to take actions many consider illegal.

The Justice Department has maintained that the President can order torture,notwithstanding a criminal statute and an international treaty prohibiting torture under all circumstances. President Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, despite a comprehensive statute that makes such surveillance a crime. He has approved the "disappearance" of al-Qaeda suspects into secret prisons where they are interrogated with tactics that include waterboarding, in which the prisoner is strapped down and made to believe he will drown. He has asserted the right to imprison indefinitely, without hearings, anyone he considers an "enemy combatant," and to try such persons for war crimes in ad hoc military tribunals lacking such essential safeguards as independent judges and the right of the accused to confront the evidence against him.

In advocating these positions, which I will collectively call "the Bush doctrine," the administration has brushed aside legal objections as mere hindrances to the ultimate goal of keeping Americans safe. It has argued that domestic criminal and constitutional law are of little concern because the President's powers as commander in chief override all such laws; that the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties that regulate the treatment of prisoners during war, simply do not apply to the conflict with al-Qaeda; and more broadly still, that the President has unilateral authority to defy international law. In short, there is little to distinguish the current administration's view from that famously espoused by President Richard Nixon when asked to justify his authorization of illegal, warrantless wiretapping of Americans during the Vietnam War: "When the President does it,that means that it is not illegal."

If another nation's leader adopted such positions, the United States would be quick to condemn him or her for violating fundamental tenets of the rule of law, human rights, and the separation of powers. But President Bush has largely gotten away with it, at least at home, for at least three reasons. His party holds a decisive majority in Congress, making effective political checks by that branch highly unlikely. The Democratic Party has shied away from directly challenging the President for fear that it will be viewed as soft on terrorism. And the American public has for the most part offered only muted objections.

These realities make the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, issued on the last day of its 2005-2006 term, in equal parts stunning and crucial. Stunning because the Court, unlike Congress, the opposition party, or the American people, actually stood up to the President. Crucial because the Court's decision, while on the surface narrowly focused on whether the military tribunals President Bush created to try foreign suspects for war crimes were consistent with U.S. law, marked, at a deeper level, a dramatic refutation of the administration's entire approach to the "war on terror." CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

David Cole is a Professor of Law at Georgetown and a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. He is the author of Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism.

This article appears in the August 10, 2006 issue of
the New York Review of Books.
Copyright 2006 David Cole

CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!