My Broken Nation discussion group is doing well and building a base of members. I'm very pleased with the discussions and hope they continue.
http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Broken_Nation
In addition, I've become the co-host of several other groups:
Let's Explore Gore For President - Again!
http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Gore_for_Prez
And Election 2008: We Need a Change
http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Election2008
My other group Wrong Island/ Long Island is currently in the works too
http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/WrongIsland
I hope you get the chance to join us there.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Leave Our Country Now
From the first days of the US-British invasion of Iraq, oil workers have resisted foreign occupation. Hassan Juma'a Awad The Guardian
We lived through dark days under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. When the regime fell, people wanted a new life: a life without shackles and terror; a life where we could rebuild our country and enjoy its natural wealth. Instead, our communities have been attacked with chemicals and cluster bombs, and our people tortured, raped and killed in our homes.
Saddam's secret police used to creep over the roofs into our homes at night; occupation troops now break down our doors in broad daylight. The media do not show even a fraction of the devastation that has engulfed Iraq. Journalists who dare to report the truth of what is happening have been kidnapped by terrorists. This serves the agenda of the occupation, which aims to eliminate witnesses to its crimes.
Workers in Iraq's southern oilfields began organising soon after British occupying forces invaded Basra. We founded our union, the Southern Oil Company Union, just 11 days after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. When the occupation troops stood back and allowed Basra's hospitals, universities and public services to be burned and looted, while they defended only the oil ministry and oilfields, we knew we were dealing with a brutal force prepared to impose its will without regard for human suffering. From the beginning, we were left in no doubt that the US and its allies had come to take control of our oil resources.
The occupation authorities have maintained many of Saddam's repressive laws, including the 1987 order which robbed us of basic union rights, including the right to strike. Today, we still have no official recognition as a trade union, despite having 23,000 members in 10 oil and gas companies in Basra, Amara, Nassiriya, and up to Anbar province. However, we draw our legitimacy from the workers, not the government. We believe unions should operate regardless of the government's wishes, until the people are able finally to elect a genuinely accountable and independent Iraqi government, which represents our interests and not those of American imperialism.
Our union is independent of any political party. Most trade unions in Britain only seem to be aware of one union federation in Iraq, the regime-authorised Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, whose president, Rassim Awadi, is deputy leader of the US-imposed prime minister Ayad Allawi's party. The IFTU's leadership is carved up between the pro-government Communist party, Allawi's Iraqi National Accord, and their satellites. In fact, there are two other union federations, which are linked to political parties, as well as our own organisation.
Our union has already shown it is able to stand its ground against one of the most powerful US companies, Dick Cheney's KBR, which tried to take over our workplaces with the protection of occupation forces.
We forced them out and compelled their Kuwaiti subcontractor, Al Khourafi, to replace 1,000 of the 1,200 employees it brought with it with Iraqi workers, 70% of whom are unemployed today. We also fought US viceroy Paul Bremer's wage schedule, which dictated that Iraqi public sector workers must earn ID 69,000 ($35) per month, while paying up to $1,000 a day to thousands of foreign mercenaries. In August 2003 we took strike action and shut down all oil production for three days. As a result, the occupation authorities had to raise wages to a minimum of ID 150,000.
We see it as our duty to defend the country's resources. We reject and will oppose all moves to privatise our oil industry and national resources. We regard this privatisation as a form of neo-colonialism, an attempt to impose a permanent economic occupation to follow the military occupation.
The occupation has deliberately fomented a sectarian division of Sunni and Shia. We never knew this sort of division before. Our families intermarried, we lived and worked together. And today we are resisting this brutal occupation together, from Falluja to Najaf to Sadr City. The resistance to the occupation forces is a God-given right of Iraqis, and we, as a union, see ourselves as a necessary part of this resistance - although we will fight using our industrial power, our collective strength as a union, and as a part of civil society which needs to grow in order to defeat both still-powerful Saddamist elites and the foreign occupation of our country.
Bush and Blair should remember that those who voted in last month's elections in Iraq are as hostile to the occupation as those who boycotted them. Those who claim to represent the Iraqi working class while calling for the occupation to stay a bit longer, due to "fears of civil war", are in fact speaking only for themselves and the minority of Iraqis whose interests are dependent on the occupation.
We as a union call for the withdrawal of foreign occupation forces and their military bases. We don't want a timetable - this is a stalling tactic. We will solve our own problems. We are Iraqis, we know our country and we can take care of ourselves. We have the means, the skills and resources to rebuild and create our own democratic society.
· Hassan Juma'a Awad is general secretary of Iraq's Southern Oil Company Union and president of the Basra Oil Workers' Union
We lived through dark days under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. When the regime fell, people wanted a new life: a life without shackles and terror; a life where we could rebuild our country and enjoy its natural wealth. Instead, our communities have been attacked with chemicals and cluster bombs, and our people tortured, raped and killed in our homes.
Saddam's secret police used to creep over the roofs into our homes at night; occupation troops now break down our doors in broad daylight. The media do not show even a fraction of the devastation that has engulfed Iraq. Journalists who dare to report the truth of what is happening have been kidnapped by terrorists. This serves the agenda of the occupation, which aims to eliminate witnesses to its crimes.
Workers in Iraq's southern oilfields began organising soon after British occupying forces invaded Basra. We founded our union, the Southern Oil Company Union, just 11 days after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. When the occupation troops stood back and allowed Basra's hospitals, universities and public services to be burned and looted, while they defended only the oil ministry and oilfields, we knew we were dealing with a brutal force prepared to impose its will without regard for human suffering. From the beginning, we were left in no doubt that the US and its allies had come to take control of our oil resources.
The occupation authorities have maintained many of Saddam's repressive laws, including the 1987 order which robbed us of basic union rights, including the right to strike. Today, we still have no official recognition as a trade union, despite having 23,000 members in 10 oil and gas companies in Basra, Amara, Nassiriya, and up to Anbar province. However, we draw our legitimacy from the workers, not the government. We believe unions should operate regardless of the government's wishes, until the people are able finally to elect a genuinely accountable and independent Iraqi government, which represents our interests and not those of American imperialism.
Our union is independent of any political party. Most trade unions in Britain only seem to be aware of one union federation in Iraq, the regime-authorised Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, whose president, Rassim Awadi, is deputy leader of the US-imposed prime minister Ayad Allawi's party. The IFTU's leadership is carved up between the pro-government Communist party, Allawi's Iraqi National Accord, and their satellites. In fact, there are two other union federations, which are linked to political parties, as well as our own organisation.
Our union has already shown it is able to stand its ground against one of the most powerful US companies, Dick Cheney's KBR, which tried to take over our workplaces with the protection of occupation forces.
We forced them out and compelled their Kuwaiti subcontractor, Al Khourafi, to replace 1,000 of the 1,200 employees it brought with it with Iraqi workers, 70% of whom are unemployed today. We also fought US viceroy Paul Bremer's wage schedule, which dictated that Iraqi public sector workers must earn ID 69,000 ($35) per month, while paying up to $1,000 a day to thousands of foreign mercenaries. In August 2003 we took strike action and shut down all oil production for three days. As a result, the occupation authorities had to raise wages to a minimum of ID 150,000.
We see it as our duty to defend the country's resources. We reject and will oppose all moves to privatise our oil industry and national resources. We regard this privatisation as a form of neo-colonialism, an attempt to impose a permanent economic occupation to follow the military occupation.
The occupation has deliberately fomented a sectarian division of Sunni and Shia. We never knew this sort of division before. Our families intermarried, we lived and worked together. And today we are resisting this brutal occupation together, from Falluja to Najaf to Sadr City. The resistance to the occupation forces is a God-given right of Iraqis, and we, as a union, see ourselves as a necessary part of this resistance - although we will fight using our industrial power, our collective strength as a union, and as a part of civil society which needs to grow in order to defeat both still-powerful Saddamist elites and the foreign occupation of our country.
Bush and Blair should remember that those who voted in last month's elections in Iraq are as hostile to the occupation as those who boycotted them. Those who claim to represent the Iraqi working class while calling for the occupation to stay a bit longer, due to "fears of civil war", are in fact speaking only for themselves and the minority of Iraqis whose interests are dependent on the occupation.
We as a union call for the withdrawal of foreign occupation forces and their military bases. We don't want a timetable - this is a stalling tactic. We will solve our own problems. We are Iraqis, we know our country and we can take care of ourselves. We have the means, the skills and resources to rebuild and create our own democratic society.
· Hassan Juma'a Awad is general secretary of Iraq's Southern Oil Company Union and president of the Basra Oil Workers' Union
Thursday, June 22, 2006
CONGRESS IS A KILLING MACHINE AND SHOULD BE FIRED ALONG WITH BUSH
Republicans are creating the next Vietnam with Bush's war gone wrong and some Democrats who have now shown their true colors are contributing to the slaughter mill in Iraq.
At issue were three proposals:
An amendment to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of this year, introduced by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY., last week. (The Senate voted 93 to 6 to reject it.)
A non-binding proposal offered by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., to urge President Bush to begin “redeployment” of U.S. troops from Iraq by Dec 31, was rejected 60-39 Thursday.
A measure offered by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., that sets a deadline of July 1, 2007, for U.S. troops to be withdrawn – except for those needed to train Iraqi forces -- was rejected 86-13 Thursday.
WASHINGTON - The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic calls to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by year's end, as the two parties sought to define their election-year positions on a war that has grown increasingly unpopular.
"Withdrawal is not an option. Surrender is not a solution," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who characterized Democrats as defeatists wanting to abandon Iraq before the mission is complete.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in turn, portrayed Republican leaders as blindly following President Bush's "failed" stay-the-course strategy. "It is long past time to change course in Iraq and start to end the president's open-ended commitment," he said.
Which Democracts voted for the war to continue?
Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, and Obama. Lieberman is hopefully going home this fall, but the other three can forget about the presidency.
John Kerry's response:
Dear William,
Just hours ago, the Senate voted on the Kerry-Feingold proposal to redeploy American combat troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. Thirteen Senators voted for it. It was an important step towards ending the administration's aimless, open-ended course in Iraq and having Iraqis stand up for Iraq. When Jack Murtha stepped up to the challenge of leadership in the House on Iraq, he was alone. Last week, 140 House members voted to support his leadership. When we in the Senate began the fight to change course in Iraq, we too were almost alone. Today our numbers grew -- and that is progress you made happen.
First and foremost, Russ and I thank you for your support. Over the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands of you have joined our effort to bring our combat troops home. Once again, the johnkerry.com community has shown its deep commitment to fighting for a better course for America.
We ask you to join us now in honoring the strength and leadership of the Senators who stood with you:
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Please call, write, or email these Senators and acknowledge their leadership on Iraq.
Let me be absolutely clear. Russ Feingold and I would have forced this vote even if the outcome were going to be 98 to 2. Ending the Bush administration's disastrous approach to this war isn't about counting votes. It isn't about legislative strategy or electoral calculation. It's about applying constant pressure to change a broken course.
It's about utterly rejecting the desperate tactics of cowardly political operatives like Karl Rove who, as John Murtha pointed out, have no qualms about telling our soldiers to "stay the course" from the comfort of their air-conditioned offices at the White House.
It's about doing what's right.
Karl Rove may worry about losing votes. It's our job to worry about young Americans losing their lives. It's our job to provide a new vision that offers real security for America while giving the Iraqis their best chance for a stable Iraq.
I will keep doing what's right on Iraq, and I won't stop until our troops are home and the future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people.
I know you'll keep working right alongside me.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
Press statement from Jonathan Tasini, Hillary Clinton's NY primary opponent:
"Today, Hillary Clinton voted to prolong the violence and killing in Iraq. By voting against an amendment co-sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer and Patrick Leahy, my opponent clearly showed that she is out of step with the views of Democratic primary voters in New York. More American men and women will die, as will thousands of Iraqis, because of this vote and the Senate's failure to agree to bring this war to a quick end."
"Frankly, the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer-Feingold amendment did not go far enough. It called only for the removal of all U.S. troops by June 2007. If passed, the amendment would have meant that many more people would die in the next year in this pointless, immoral, illegal war. My position has been clear: I support legislation advanced by Rep. Jim McGovern (MA) which calls for the immediate cutting off of all funds for offensive military action in Iraq and allows for money to be spent only on the quick, immediate, safe withdrawal of U.S. troops, reconstruction of Iraq and the replacement of the U.S. military by an international security force."
"Yet, at least the proposed amendment would have been one small step to acknowledge that the war has been a failure and that the violence must end--an end that can only come when there are no more U.S. military personnel in Iraq. But, my opponent will not even vote for legislation that promises that our troops will be out of harm's way in one year. I believe it is now quite clear to the voters of New York that my opponent's support for the war continues and that, if she is re-elected, the war will continue unabated, with no end in sight." http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/issues
Find your Senator below and thank them for today's courageous vote. You may use the letter I wrote if you wish or just send them a simple thank you.
Dear Senator .......,
Thank you for your strength and leadership in the Senate today. Your brave and logical vote for the Kerry Feingold Iraq withdrawal proposal means a lot to Americans, both at home and in Iraq. Republicans are creating "Vietnam Part 2" and many Democrats are buying right into it. Today everyone showed their true colors. The intelligence is right this time. No WMD. No links to terrorism. No more excuses. And we should keep demanding no more deaths in Iraq!
Thank you for your vote. I know you'll keep up the battle to end this senseless and costly war as soon as possible.
Sincerely,.....
Senators who voted today for a guaranteed withdrawal of the troops:
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) http://akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm#contact
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) http://harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) http://inouye.senate.gov/abtform.html
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT) http://jeffords.senate.gov/contact.html
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
To ask your Senator why they are not on the above list, find them at:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Broken_Nation
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” - Abraham Lincoln
At issue were three proposals:
An amendment to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of this year, introduced by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY., last week. (The Senate voted 93 to 6 to reject it.)
A non-binding proposal offered by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., to urge President Bush to begin “redeployment” of U.S. troops from Iraq by Dec 31, was rejected 60-39 Thursday.
A measure offered by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., that sets a deadline of July 1, 2007, for U.S. troops to be withdrawn – except for those needed to train Iraqi forces -- was rejected 86-13 Thursday.
WASHINGTON - The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic calls to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by year's end, as the two parties sought to define their election-year positions on a war that has grown increasingly unpopular.
"Withdrawal is not an option. Surrender is not a solution," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who characterized Democrats as defeatists wanting to abandon Iraq before the mission is complete.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in turn, portrayed Republican leaders as blindly following President Bush's "failed" stay-the-course strategy. "It is long past time to change course in Iraq and start to end the president's open-ended commitment," he said.
Which Democracts voted for the war to continue?
Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, and Obama. Lieberman is hopefully going home this fall, but the other three can forget about the presidency.
John Kerry's response:
Dear William,
Just hours ago, the Senate voted on the Kerry-Feingold proposal to redeploy American combat troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. Thirteen Senators voted for it. It was an important step towards ending the administration's aimless, open-ended course in Iraq and having Iraqis stand up for Iraq. When Jack Murtha stepped up to the challenge of leadership in the House on Iraq, he was alone. Last week, 140 House members voted to support his leadership. When we in the Senate began the fight to change course in Iraq, we too were almost alone. Today our numbers grew -- and that is progress you made happen.
First and foremost, Russ and I thank you for your support. Over the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands of you have joined our effort to bring our combat troops home. Once again, the johnkerry.com community has shown its deep commitment to fighting for a better course for America.
We ask you to join us now in honoring the strength and leadership of the Senators who stood with you:
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Please call, write, or email these Senators and acknowledge their leadership on Iraq.
Let me be absolutely clear. Russ Feingold and I would have forced this vote even if the outcome were going to be 98 to 2. Ending the Bush administration's disastrous approach to this war isn't about counting votes. It isn't about legislative strategy or electoral calculation. It's about applying constant pressure to change a broken course.
It's about utterly rejecting the desperate tactics of cowardly political operatives like Karl Rove who, as John Murtha pointed out, have no qualms about telling our soldiers to "stay the course" from the comfort of their air-conditioned offices at the White House.
It's about doing what's right.
Karl Rove may worry about losing votes. It's our job to worry about young Americans losing their lives. It's our job to provide a new vision that offers real security for America while giving the Iraqis their best chance for a stable Iraq.
I will keep doing what's right on Iraq, and I won't stop until our troops are home and the future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people.
I know you'll keep working right alongside me.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
Press statement from Jonathan Tasini, Hillary Clinton's NY primary opponent:
"Today, Hillary Clinton voted to prolong the violence and killing in Iraq. By voting against an amendment co-sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer and Patrick Leahy, my opponent clearly showed that she is out of step with the views of Democratic primary voters in New York. More American men and women will die, as will thousands of Iraqis, because of this vote and the Senate's failure to agree to bring this war to a quick end."
"Frankly, the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer-Feingold amendment did not go far enough. It called only for the removal of all U.S. troops by June 2007. If passed, the amendment would have meant that many more people would die in the next year in this pointless, immoral, illegal war. My position has been clear: I support legislation advanced by Rep. Jim McGovern (MA) which calls for the immediate cutting off of all funds for offensive military action in Iraq and allows for money to be spent only on the quick, immediate, safe withdrawal of U.S. troops, reconstruction of Iraq and the replacement of the U.S. military by an international security force."
"Yet, at least the proposed amendment would have been one small step to acknowledge that the war has been a failure and that the violence must end--an end that can only come when there are no more U.S. military personnel in Iraq. But, my opponent will not even vote for legislation that promises that our troops will be out of harm's way in one year. I believe it is now quite clear to the voters of New York that my opponent's support for the war continues and that, if she is re-elected, the war will continue unabated, with no end in sight." http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/issues
Find your Senator below and thank them for today's courageous vote. You may use the letter I wrote if you wish or just send them a simple thank you.
Dear Senator .......,
Thank you for your strength and leadership in the Senate today. Your brave and logical vote for the Kerry Feingold Iraq withdrawal proposal means a lot to Americans, both at home and in Iraq. Republicans are creating "Vietnam Part 2" and many Democrats are buying right into it. Today everyone showed their true colors. The intelligence is right this time. No WMD. No links to terrorism. No more excuses. And we should keep demanding no more deaths in Iraq!
Thank you for your vote. I know you'll keep up the battle to end this senseless and costly war as soon as possible.
Sincerely,.....
Senators who voted today for a guaranteed withdrawal of the troops:
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) http://akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm#contact
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) http://harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) http://inouye.senate.gov/abtform.html
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT) http://jeffords.senate.gov/contact.html
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
To ask your Senator why they are not on the above list, find them at:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Broken_Nation
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” - Abraham Lincoln
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The first of many convictions to come
We're starting to clean up-- it's a slow process
Ex-Bush aide convicted in D.C. corruption case
Safavian found guilty on 4 counts of obstruction, making false statements
NBC News and news services
WASHINGTON - A jury Tuesday convicted a former Bush administration official of four counts of lying and obstructing justice in the first trial to be held in connection with the influence-peddling scandal of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
On the fifth day of deliberations, the jury found David Safavian — a former chief of staff at the General Services Administration — guilty of four of five counts of lying and obstructing justice.
Safavian sat impassively as the judge read the verdict and showed no expression when the judge announced the guilty verdicts on each of four counts. Sentencing was scheduled for Oct. 12.
Each of the counts carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in jail.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13436161/
Unfortunately though, it looks like Scooter Libby is going to get pardoned.
Ex-Bush aide convicted in D.C. corruption case
Safavian found guilty on 4 counts of obstruction, making false statements
NBC News and news services
WASHINGTON - A jury Tuesday convicted a former Bush administration official of four counts of lying and obstructing justice in the first trial to be held in connection with the influence-peddling scandal of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
On the fifth day of deliberations, the jury found David Safavian — a former chief of staff at the General Services Administration — guilty of four of five counts of lying and obstructing justice.
Safavian sat impassively as the judge read the verdict and showed no expression when the judge announced the guilty verdicts on each of four counts. Sentencing was scheduled for Oct. 12.
Each of the counts carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in jail.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13436161/
Unfortunately though, it looks like Scooter Libby is going to get pardoned.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Advanced Knowledge? excerpts from Chapter 2 "9/11"
ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE?
Unfortunately, and despite some helpful information, what we obtained from the 9/11 Commission’s research is limited because of the rules Bush made for himself. Twenty-eight pages are completely classified and blocked from the public. Many familiar with the report claim this section deals with Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the hijackers. The truth is, officials in our government knew about the attacks long before they happened. As Richard Clarke said in his testimony, “I’m sorry, but we (your government) have failed you.” The following is a summary of just a few of the many warnings of 9/11:
· In early 2001, the BAD ordered U.S. agents to back off and end the investigation of the Bin Ladens. 2
· In early 2001, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, declared the most serious national threats as a hurricane hitting New Orleans, an earthquake hitting San Francisco, and a terrorist attack hitting New York City. As of this printing, two had occurred; the earthquake, of course had not yet hit California. We can now be assured our government won’t be ready for that one either.
· In June 2001, the CIA was warned by German intelligence that Middle Eastern terrorists were “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.” This information came to the German government by way of a phone call by an Iranian man, who supposedly also phoned U.S. law enforcement to warn of an imminent attack the week of September 9. German police confirm the calls but state that the U.S. Secret Service would not reveal any further information. [i]
· In July 2001, an FBI agent in Arizona named Kenneth Williams warned about “an inordinate number of individuals of investigative-interest taking flight training.” This memo, known as the “Phoenix Memo” asked the FBI to collect data on flight schools and foreign students. According to the July 25, 2003 story “A History of Missed Connections” in the Washington Post, one of the men mentioned in the memo was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 with a senior Al Qaeda facilitator, Abu Zubayda. [ii]
· In August 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his government to warn the U.S. of imminent terrorist attacks on airports and government buildings. [i]
· One very strange and disturbing story took place in August 2001 when U.S. Navy Lieutenant Mike Vreeland was jailed in Toronto on U.S. fraud charges for claiming to be an officer of U.S. Naval Intelligence. Vreeland, while imprisoned, wrote details of the pending attack on the U.S. and sealed these papers in an envelope, which he then handed over to Canadian authorities. Canadian jailers opened this letter three days after 9/11 and read the warnings. When Canada initially contacted the U.S., the Navy claimed Vreeland was discharged in 1986 and had never worked in Intelligence. On January 10, 2002 during Vreeland’s trial, his attorneys called the Pentagon switchboard operator from a speakerphone and confirmed that Vreeland was indeed a Naval Lieutenant on active duty. The operator even provided a direct phone extension to Vreeland’s empty Pentagon office. What we will ever learn about Vreeland’s knowledge of the attacks is all uncertain. Why haven’t we heard his story in the major media? The answer is he’s been silenced by the government and the conspiracy-labeling Republicans who have smeared him because of their fear that the truth will come out. [ii]
· Newspapers in the Middle East received warnings from Al-Qaeda. 10
· MSNBC reported that in the week before the attacks, a caller to a Cayman Islands radio talk show gave several warnings of an attack on the U.S. [iii]
· Several children, ages 8-16, in New York and New Jersey leaked information to classmates and teachers prophesizing a disaster and warning them to stay away from Manhattan. The New York City Board of Education confirmed that school officials reported the incidents to police and that the matter had since been taken over by the FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force. This disturbing news was well documented by many U.S. news stations in the days following September 11, but how quickly the public forgets. [i]
· On the morning of 9/11, employees of Odigo Inc. in Israel, a worldwide instant messaging company with offices in New York, received threat warnings of an attack on the World Trade Center. This was two hours before the first plane struck. [ii]
· The FAA received 52 warnings. Five of the warnings mentioned hijackers. Two of the warnings mentioned suicide missions.
All of these warnings from governments, citizens, and even children have vanished from our minds in the haze of everything that has transpired since, and in which the U.S. government has suppressed into silence. Republicans have dismissed these truths as conspiracy or coincidence. There are, however, undoubtedly too many coincidences to be permanently dismissed.
· Let’s go back to where it all began—the state of Florida. On September 7, 2001, Governor Jeb Bush signed a two-year emergency executive order (01-261) that made new provisions for the Florida National Guard to assist law enforcement and emergency management personnel in the event of large civil disturbances, disaster, or acts of terrorism. This action was dismissed as “pure coincidence.”
· Then a week before September 11th, two U.S. carrier battle groups arrived on station off the Pakistan coast in the Gulf of Arabia. Approximately 17,000 U.S. troops simultaneously joined NATO troops in Egypt for “Operation Bright Star.” (5) These forces were all in place when the attacks began. Another coincidence?
· FEMA sent the Urban Search and Rescue Team to New York City the night before the attacks occurred! Tom Kennedy of FEMA slipped during an interview with Dan Rather, “We arrived on late Monday night and went right into action on Tuesday morning.”
· In August 2005, Representative Curt Weldon, Vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said this:
Sept. 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers were identified by defense intelligence officials more than a year before the attacks, but no information about possible Al Qaeda connections was sent to law enforcement… The hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as “Able Danger,” which determined they could be members of an Al Qaeda cell...
...The aftermath doesn’t add up either. Bill Manning, Fire Engineering’s Editor in Chief, wrote in his January 2002 Editor’s Opinion, “$elling Out the Investigation,” [i]
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza fire? Of course not. But essentially, that’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center.
Manning was referring to the federal government’s rapid removal and disposal of WTC rubble, some of which was sold off to China and other foreign nations. All WTC rubble was destroyed and sold off by May of 2002. Not one piece of this federal crime scene was saved for a federal investigation, a clear violation of federal law. Manning continued, “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately… The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.” This, of course, was never done, to Manning’s dissatisfaction as well as all of the 9/11 victim’s families.
Interesting & related articles
No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001?
How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?
No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm
Bush Authorized 911 Attacks
http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm
Unfortunately, and despite some helpful information, what we obtained from the 9/11 Commission’s research is limited because of the rules Bush made for himself. Twenty-eight pages are completely classified and blocked from the public. Many familiar with the report claim this section deals with Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the hijackers. The truth is, officials in our government knew about the attacks long before they happened. As Richard Clarke said in his testimony, “I’m sorry, but we (your government) have failed you.” The following is a summary of just a few of the many warnings of 9/11:
· In early 2001, the BAD ordered U.S. agents to back off and end the investigation of the Bin Ladens. 2
· In early 2001, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, declared the most serious national threats as a hurricane hitting New Orleans, an earthquake hitting San Francisco, and a terrorist attack hitting New York City. As of this printing, two had occurred; the earthquake, of course had not yet hit California. We can now be assured our government won’t be ready for that one either.
· In June 2001, the CIA was warned by German intelligence that Middle Eastern terrorists were “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.” This information came to the German government by way of a phone call by an Iranian man, who supposedly also phoned U.S. law enforcement to warn of an imminent attack the week of September 9. German police confirm the calls but state that the U.S. Secret Service would not reveal any further information. [i]
· In July 2001, an FBI agent in Arizona named Kenneth Williams warned about “an inordinate number of individuals of investigative-interest taking flight training.” This memo, known as the “Phoenix Memo” asked the FBI to collect data on flight schools and foreign students. According to the July 25, 2003 story “A History of Missed Connections” in the Washington Post, one of the men mentioned in the memo was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 with a senior Al Qaeda facilitator, Abu Zubayda. [ii]
· In August 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his government to warn the U.S. of imminent terrorist attacks on airports and government buildings. [i]
· One very strange and disturbing story took place in August 2001 when U.S. Navy Lieutenant Mike Vreeland was jailed in Toronto on U.S. fraud charges for claiming to be an officer of U.S. Naval Intelligence. Vreeland, while imprisoned, wrote details of the pending attack on the U.S. and sealed these papers in an envelope, which he then handed over to Canadian authorities. Canadian jailers opened this letter three days after 9/11 and read the warnings. When Canada initially contacted the U.S., the Navy claimed Vreeland was discharged in 1986 and had never worked in Intelligence. On January 10, 2002 during Vreeland’s trial, his attorneys called the Pentagon switchboard operator from a speakerphone and confirmed that Vreeland was indeed a Naval Lieutenant on active duty. The operator even provided a direct phone extension to Vreeland’s empty Pentagon office. What we will ever learn about Vreeland’s knowledge of the attacks is all uncertain. Why haven’t we heard his story in the major media? The answer is he’s been silenced by the government and the conspiracy-labeling Republicans who have smeared him because of their fear that the truth will come out. [ii]
· Newspapers in the Middle East received warnings from Al-Qaeda. 10
· MSNBC reported that in the week before the attacks, a caller to a Cayman Islands radio talk show gave several warnings of an attack on the U.S. [iii]
· Several children, ages 8-16, in New York and New Jersey leaked information to classmates and teachers prophesizing a disaster and warning them to stay away from Manhattan. The New York City Board of Education confirmed that school officials reported the incidents to police and that the matter had since been taken over by the FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force. This disturbing news was well documented by many U.S. news stations in the days following September 11, but how quickly the public forgets. [i]
· On the morning of 9/11, employees of Odigo Inc. in Israel, a worldwide instant messaging company with offices in New York, received threat warnings of an attack on the World Trade Center. This was two hours before the first plane struck. [ii]
· The FAA received 52 warnings. Five of the warnings mentioned hijackers. Two of the warnings mentioned suicide missions.
All of these warnings from governments, citizens, and even children have vanished from our minds in the haze of everything that has transpired since, and in which the U.S. government has suppressed into silence. Republicans have dismissed these truths as conspiracy or coincidence. There are, however, undoubtedly too many coincidences to be permanently dismissed.
· Let’s go back to where it all began—the state of Florida. On September 7, 2001, Governor Jeb Bush signed a two-year emergency executive order (01-261) that made new provisions for the Florida National Guard to assist law enforcement and emergency management personnel in the event of large civil disturbances, disaster, or acts of terrorism. This action was dismissed as “pure coincidence.”
· Then a week before September 11th, two U.S. carrier battle groups arrived on station off the Pakistan coast in the Gulf of Arabia. Approximately 17,000 U.S. troops simultaneously joined NATO troops in Egypt for “Operation Bright Star.” (5) These forces were all in place when the attacks began. Another coincidence?
· FEMA sent the Urban Search and Rescue Team to New York City the night before the attacks occurred! Tom Kennedy of FEMA slipped during an interview with Dan Rather, “We arrived on late Monday night and went right into action on Tuesday morning.”
· In August 2005, Representative Curt Weldon, Vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said this:
Sept. 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers were identified by defense intelligence officials more than a year before the attacks, but no information about possible Al Qaeda connections was sent to law enforcement… The hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as “Able Danger,” which determined they could be members of an Al Qaeda cell...
...The aftermath doesn’t add up either. Bill Manning, Fire Engineering’s Editor in Chief, wrote in his January 2002 Editor’s Opinion, “$elling Out the Investigation,” [i]
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza fire? Of course not. But essentially, that’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center.
Manning was referring to the federal government’s rapid removal and disposal of WTC rubble, some of which was sold off to China and other foreign nations. All WTC rubble was destroyed and sold off by May of 2002. Not one piece of this federal crime scene was saved for a federal investigation, a clear violation of federal law. Manning continued, “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately… The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.” This, of course, was never done, to Manning’s dissatisfaction as well as all of the 9/11 victim’s families.
Interesting & related articles
No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001?
How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?
No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm
Bush Authorized 911 Attacks
http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)