It's all Viagras fault!

Recent reports of Viagra's and Cialis' possible blinding side effects has been a hotbed of political conspiracy amongst a very few people with time on their hands for one handed typing.

CNN.com - FDA probes blindness among Viagra users - May 27, 2005: "FDA probes blindness among Viagra users

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal health officials are examining rare reports of blindness among some men using the impotence drugs Viagra and Cialis, a disclosure that comes at a time when the drug industry can ill afford negative publicity about another class of blockbuster medicines.

The Food and Drug Administration still is investigating, but has no evidence yet that the drug is to blame, said spokeswoman Susan Cruzan.

This type of blindness is called NAION, or non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. It can occur in men who are diabetic or have heart disease, the same conditions that can cause impotence and thus lead to Viagra use."

It is expected that Dobson will come out and blame Viagra leading to increased homosexual acts and sex with minors since the users may not be able to see where they are pointing that dangerous object.

Voting groups soon will be seeking injuctions to bar Viagara users from voting since it is already "hard enough for non-users of these powerful drugs to figure out most balloting systems when you aren't blind and horny" according to Bev Harris.

The White House has scheduled a news briefing to announce their support for any drugs that might induce more republican votes as welcome news after comparing staff notes in the Jeff Gannon room (one of the White House hallway closets) and coming to the realization that while they are just small members of the conservative party they certainly needed the support of Viagara to gain re-erection, err, re-election.

While the presidents position on viagra is often referred to as the "doggy style" there is much speculation that both Jeff Gannon and Karl Rove prefer bush on his back and legs in the air. More to come on this "HARD NEWS" story.

Yep, truth can be stranger than fiction...
BUT sometimes fiction is just stranger truth...

bush Oil-for-Food kickbacks to Saddam revealed

Unlike our President that has turned a blind eye to American evidence in the Oil-for-Food scandal because of the trail of oily fingerprints, a media ignored part of the Dems minority report on the scandal isn't so kind. The Bayoil links to Enron and bush family members are revealed in the last few paragraphs of this article by Wayne Madsen. I encourage you to click on the article title and read it in full. It is a real eye opener for Americans and a black eye for bush.

Galloway tongue-lashes Coleman; committee documents show Bush political friends and family paid Oil-for-Food kickbacks to Saddam Hussein:

"Coleman and Levin wrote a February 8, 2005, letter to Rumsfeld asking about the operations of the Maritime Interdiction Force in the Gulf prior to the war. A similar letter was sent to the State Department inquiring about the illegal Khor al-Amaya oil shipments. To date, the committee has not received an answer from either Rumfeld or Rice.

Minority report documents indicate that one of the largest recipients of Bayoil Iraqi oil shipments was Enron, the bankrupt company that served as a virtual slush fund for the political campaigns of George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

At the same time Enron Chairman Kenneth ('Kenny Boy') Lay was involved in Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force secret dealings and when he was stuffing hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pockets of George W. Bush and Cheney's political campaign, he also managed to illegally stick $206, 757 into the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his cohorts.

The Iraqi Oil-for-Food scandal also involves one of the Bush children—Dorothy 'Doro' Bush Koch, sister of George W. Bush and married to Bobby Koch, reportedly a cousin in the oil industry Koch family, the owner of Koch Industries, which is also one of Bush's largest political donors. The minority committee report indicates that Koch Industries was also a major recipient of illegal Iraqi oil and a huge source of kickbacks to Saddam Hussein:

The total sum in kickbacks from George W. Bush's cousin-in-laws to Saddam's bank accounts: $1,294,620.

George Galloway was correct when he called the Coleman Committee the "mother of all smoke screens." Major political contributors and friends of Bush not only paid illegal kickbacks to Saddam Hussein but personally profited from sanctions-busting with Iraq. Those involved in the scheme included individuals who date back to the Reagan/Bush 41 "cluster bombs and biological and chemical weapons-for-oil" scandal of the 1980s. Galloway is correct when he stated that there is enough evidence on Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair and their neocon advisers to park them in prison cells in The Hague for an awfully long time.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based journalist and nationally distributed columnist.

Not only does this article reveal bush family and friends connections to the Oil-for-Food scandal, but it also shows ties to members of the bush sr. Saddam-Iran deals with rummy the dummy, Condi "Chevron" Rice, and Dick Cheney's energy task force.

Galloway was right in his statements directed at Coleman, and at this point there is only one question left to ask: "Are there any of these modern-day pseudoconservatives that were not dipping their hands in the Oil-for-Food barrel?" The trail of oily fingerprints makes a convincing case for Galloway's statements, and the hypocrisy of all of the bleating going on in the bush herd about UN Oil-for-Food scandals.

Why has nobody impeached this idiot in the White House yet? How much evidence of corruption and lying do you need? The Downing Street Memo and all of the supporting minutes of bush admin. meetings with the Blair admin. prove that bush lied to the Senate to start the Iraqi invasion. Now you have evidence that bush and his admin. are tied in to Saddam kickbacks. The media ignores these issues. Too many Americans sit on their hands saying to themselves that they are the little guy and can't do anything about it. These are sad times in our nation when good Americans won't get off their ass and do something about it!

www.impeachbush.org

Consider the Source

Is Newsweek making fun of Scott McClellan and the White House in their latest headline "Consider the Source"? If they aren't, then I am...

MSNBC - Consider the Source

Consider the Source

The State Department says MEK is a terror group. Human Rights Watch says it’s a cult. For the White House, MEK is a source of intelligence on Iran.

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 4:35 p.m. ET May 19, 2005

May 18 - A controversial exile movement cited by President George W. Bush as a source of information on Iran's nuclear ambitions is condemned for psychologically and physically abusing its own members in a new report by Human Rights Watch.

In a document scheduled for public release this week, Human Rights Watch alleges that the Iranian exile group known as Mujahedine Khalq (MEK) has a history of cultlike practices that include forcing members to divorce their spouses and to engage in extended self-criticism sessions.

More dramatically, the report states, former MEK members told Human Rights Watch that when they protested MEK policies or tried to leave the organization, they were arrested, in some cases violently abused and in other instances imprisoned. Two former recruits told the human-rights group that they were held in solitary confinement for years in a camp operated by MEK in Iraq under the protection of Saddam Hussein. MEK representatives in the United States and France, where MEK is headquartered, did not immediately respond to NEWSWEEK phone calls and an e-mail requesting comment.

MEK has long been controversial because of its history of violent attacks in Iran, its relationship with Saddam's regime and its background as a quasi-religious, quasi-Marxist radical resistance group founded in the era of the late Iranian shah. In 1997, the Clinton administration put MEK on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups. MEK's U.S. supporters, among whom at one point numbered dozens of members of Congress, charged that the Clinton administration only labeled MEK as a terrorist group as part of an ill-conceived attempt to improve relations with the ayatollahs who currently run Iran. However, the Bush administration added two alleged MEK front organizations to the State Department's terrorist list in 2003.

Despite the group's notoriety, Bush himself cited purported intelligence gathered by MEK as evidence of the Iranian regime's rapidly accelerating nuclear ambitions. At a March 16 press conference, Bush said Iran's hidden nuclear program had been discovered not because of international inspections but "because a dissident group pointed it out to the world." White House aides acknowledged later that the dissident group cited by the president is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), one of the MEK front groups added to the State Department list two years ago.

In an appearance before a House International Relations Subcommittee a year ago, John Bolton, the controversial State Department undersecretary who Bush has nominated to become US ambassador to the United Nations, was questioned by a Congressman sympathetic to MEK about whether it was appropriate for the U.S. government to pay attention to allegations about Iran supplied by the group. Bolton said he believed that MEK "qualifies as a terrorist organization according to our criteria." But he added that he did not think the official label had "prohibited us from getting information from them. And I certainly don't have any inhibition about getting information about what's going on in Iran from whatever source we can find that we deem reliable."

However, current and former senior U.S. national-security officials, who asked not to be named because they are not supposed to talk about intelligence-gathering activities, say that all the major revelations MEK publicly claims to have made regarding nuclear advances in Iran were reported in classified form—and from other sources—to U.S. policymakers before MEK made them public. A Western diplomat familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations component that has been monitoring Iran's nuclear program, said that while the MEK has occasionally come up with accurate information about Iran's nukes, the group has come up with a similar number of other tips that have not checked out.

According to Human Rights Watch, several members of Congress, including both Republicans and Democrats, only last month attended a Washington meeting of a legal "MKO-backed" group called the National Convention for a Democratic, Secular Republic in Iran. In February, the group says, a think tank co-chaired by retired U.S. military officers called for MEK to be dropped from the State Department terrorist list and recommended that the U.S. government actively support MEK in its campaign to bring down the Iranian theocracy.

According to administration officials, some Pentagon officials want to recruit former MEK members as U.S. secret agents who would infiltrate Iran on intelligence missions. The Pentagon has emphatically insisted that it has no plans to work with the MEK or any of the group's members.

The new Human Rights Watch report offers no insight into the validity or inaccuracy of MEK information about Iranian's nuclear program but it does allege strange and sometimes brutal behavior by the group’s leaders and internal security apparatus. According to the report, MEK, formed in 1965 by three political activists, originally was an "urban guerilla group" which participated in the struggle against the shah that resulted in the 1979 Iranian revolution and produced the current theocratic regime in Tehran.

In an early schism following the revolution, the MEK and Abolhassan Bani Sadr, briefly Iran's president during the 1980 U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, split away from the main revolutionary movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini and went into exile. Later, Bani Sadr in turn split from MEK after a disagreement with Massoud Rajavi, who, with his wife, Maryam, subsequently became the movement's unchallenged leader. During the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam allowed MEK to set up several military camps in Iraq—with a headquarters encampment near Baghdad known as Camp Ashraf—and the group proceeded to conduct paramilitary operations against the Tehran regime, the largest of which was mounted—unsuccessfully—shortly after Iran agreed to a U.N.-brokered ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq War. MEK reportedly lost more than 1,000 fighters in this attack.

According to Human Rights Watch, following this 1988 military defeat, the Rajavi's leadership of MEK became increasingly authoritarian and cultlike. According to an MEK defector's memoir, Rajavi claimed to have a mystical relationship with a prophet known as Imam Zaman, who is Shia Islam's version of the long-awaited Messiah. In order to better cement their relationship with their leader, and hence ultimately their Messiah, Rajavi then instructed his followers to divorce their spouses. The group had already established a practice of "self criticism," under which members were asked to undergo their own personal "ideological revolution" by confessing personal inadequacies in cultlike confession sessions.

Paranoid about defectors and possible infiltrators from the Tehran regime's intelligence apparatus, in the l990s, according to Human Rights Watch, MEK leadership ordered a series of stringent "security clearances" in which "many" members were arrested by group organizers and interrogated and even imprisoned in special buildings inside the boundaries of MEK camps in Saddam-ruled Iraq. Human Rights Watch says the testimony of former MEK prisoners paints "a grim picture of how the organization treated its members, particularly those who held dissenting opinions or expressed an intent to leave the organization."

Witnesses contacted by Human Rights Watch reported two deaths during the course of MEK internal interrogations and other cases of lengthy imprisonment. One MEK detainee interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Mohammad Hussein Sobhani, claimed to have spent eight and a half years in solitary confinement in MEK detention facilities after he started raising questions about the leadership's policies. He said he was beaten on 11 occasions with wooden sticks and leather belts. Another former MEK member interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Farhad Javaheri-Yar, claimed to have been imprisoned in solitary confinement by the group for five years.

Other witnesses told Human Rights Watch claimed it was the practice of MEK interrogators to tie thick ropes around prisoners' necks and drag them along the ground. One witness told investigators: "Sometimes prisoners returned to the cell with extremely swollen necks—their head and neck as big as a pillow." In a statement accompanying its investigative report, Joe Stork, a Human Rights Watch expert on the Middle East, commented: "The Iranian government has a dreadful record on human rights. But it would be a mistake to promote an opposition group that is responsible for serious human rights abuses.”
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7902719/site/newsweek/

OOPS! Someone forgot to tell the press secretary the news?

People living in the bush fantasy world try and blame Newsweek for riots caused by the bush regimes policies, but "Bloggerman" Keith Olberman had some interesting remarks about the White House statements that resulted. As for Scott Mclellan, he can sit on this and rotate for a while...

Afghan Riots Not Tied to Report on Quran Handling, General Says, Army investigating allegations of mishandling at Guantanamo Bay facility

By Jacquelyn S. Porth
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington – The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says a report from Afghanistan suggests that rioting in Jalalabad on May 11 was not necessarily connected to press reports that the Quran might have been desecrated in the presence of Muslim prisoners held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Air Force General Richard Myers told reporters at the Pentagon May 12 that he has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else.

According to initial reports, the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine that U.S. military interrogators questioning Muslim detainees at the Guantanamo detention center “had placed Quran s on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book.” By the following day the protests in the city had turned violent with reports of several individuals killed, dozens wounded, and widespread looting of government, diplomatic and nongovernmental assets.

However, Myers said an after-action report provided by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces in Afghanistan, indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.

Meanwhile, Myers said the U.S. military has assigned Army General Bantz Craddock to investigate allegations about the handling of the Quran at Guantanamo. Craddock brings the full weight of his responsibility as commander of the U.S. Southern Command to this effort.

Myers said the International Committee of the Red Cross has approved the edition of the Quran that has been distributed to Muslim detainees in Guantanamo. Craddock has been investigating the claim that proper respect was not given to the Koran. There are now some 550 enemy combatants at the military installation, which is designed to isolate individuals whom the military has identified as likely to have valuable intelligence about international terrorism.

Craddock and his team have examined the prisoner interrogation logs and Myers said “they cannot confirm yet” that there ever was a case of a U.S. interrogator flushing a Quran down the toilet. He did say there is another unconfirmed log reference to a guard report that a detainee tore pages from the Quran and flushed them in an attempt to flood the holding area as a form of protest.

Myers answered questions about the alleged Quran incident on the same day that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice addressed the issue during an appearance before the House International Relations Committee.

She said disrespect for the Quran will never be tolerated by the United States and such disrespect “is abhorrent to us all.” Pakistan has voiced its concerns about the alleged incident, and Rice said the United States understands and shares the concerns of its Muslim friends. She went on to voice this request: “I am asking that all our friends around the world reject incitement to violence by those who would mischaracterize our intentions.” (See related article.)

INSURGENCY SEEKS TO DISCREDIT NEW IRAQI CABINET, MYERS SAYS

At the Pentagon, Myers was also questioned closely about the increase in violence in Iraq in recent weeks. He acknowledged that there has been “a spike in violence in early May,” but he said this is to be expected given the “very violent insurgency” that is under way in that country.

The insurgency’s use of a variety of roadside and car bombs has been difficult to thwart, the general said. He also noted the difficulty of sealing Iraq’s borders against infiltrators. On this “we need cooperation from Iraq’s neighbors” -- an issue that is being pursued vigorously, Myers said.

Most insurgencies have a lifespan of three to nine years, Myers said, and addressing them militarily requires patience. In this case, the insurgents are out to discredit the newly formed Iraqi Cabinet, he said.

Myers made his remarks during an appearance with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other senior military and civilian officials to talk about the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure recommendations, which will be formally unveiled May 13.


Created:12 May 2005 Updated: 13 May 2005

Scott, where's Jeff Gannon to help you rotate on that when you need him most?

Senate Fishing Expedition... Galloway leaves them all wet.

Well, I think I will let Galloway's words stand on their own other than adding that if you have read the senate committees report you would already know that they have nothing on Galloway unless they are hiding it, which would make absolutely no sense. If they could contradict him at all they would have right then and there after that onslaught of truth against the bush farce.

"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.

"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.

I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.

"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.

"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defense made of his.

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.

"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.

"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.

"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.

"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.

"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.

"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.

"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.

"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.

"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].

"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.

"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.

"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?

"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.

"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.

"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.

"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.

"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.

"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.

"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.

"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.

"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."

Can you say "fishing expedition"? I can't wait to hear the whoppers the GOP will tell tomorrow about "the one that got away!" LMAO

bush's GOP BOBBLE-HEAD DOLLS

What are Voinovich and the rest of the GOP members of the committee really saying? It is perfectly obvious that they are simply making a scripted and rehearsed statement about the Democrats plan to fillibuster bush's radical activist judges. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Your GOP talking point fillibuster smears just won't jive.

While Americans overwhelmingly support the minority protections provided by the fillibuster, GOP committee members are shirking their responsibilities to the people while sitting there nodding their heads like bobble-head dolls in support of bush's reckless choice of candidates. Why do you think there are committees to look at candidates before they go to the floor for a vote Voinovich? What are you payed to do? By whom were you elected to do your job? The president OR the people?

GOP Senator Breaks Ranks, Attacks Bolton - Yahoo! News:

"'Mr. Chairman,' Voinovich said, 'I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe it to the president to give Mr. Bolton an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.'

The committee, he said, should move the nomination along — but without a recommendation to approve Bolton. 'Let the Senate work its will,' he said.

At day's end, Voinovich prevailed. By a 10-8 party-line vote, the committee followed his recommendation, and now it will be up to the Senate itself to decide.

Afterward, Voinovich said he would vote against Bolton on the floor, but he declined to predict the outcome in the Senate, where Republicans outnumber Democrats 55 to 44, with one independent.

Voinovich said he plans to lobby fellow senators on the matter, saying he intends to 'share my concerns about him with my colleagues in the Senate, hopefully to convince them to not just rubber-stamp this, but rather give this thoughtful consideration.'"

Sorry there bobble-head Voinovich. What your statement really means to Americans is that you and the GOP failed, yet again, to do your job of representing the people. You shouldn't be on the committee if you are incapable of voting against an incompetent choice, and instead invoke your purposefully scripted, and feigned, discomfort with the choice of Bolton.

You, Voinovich, and the rest of the GOP bobble-head committee members, have failed to do what the people pay you to do by putting one of the worst possible candidates for the job at the UN on to the floor for a vote. Your Job was to stop the Senate from wasting it's time voting on the wrong candidates. It was pretty arrogant of you to assume that you are on the committee just to nod your head like a bobble-head doll. You owe it to Americans to do your job Voinovich. You, and the rest of the GOP bobble-heads, are all complete failures.

bush lied!

It really pisses me off that this story has been out there since April and the MSM refuses to give it any serious coverage. If there was any doubt about a conservative biased media this is just another marker on the highway to the truth. The "Liberal-biased media" is a figment of the radical right wing's messed up imagination.

KR Washington Bureau | 05/05/2005 | British memo indicates Bush made intelligence fit Iraq policy: "Posted on Thu, May. 05, 2005

British memo indicates Bush made intelligence fit Iraq policy

By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

'There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable,' the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD,' weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The White House has repeatedly denied accusations made by several top foreign officials that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify an invasion of Iraq.

It has instead pointed to the conclusions of two studies, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and one by a presidentially appointed panel, that cite serious failures by the CIA and other agencies in judging Saddam's weapons programs.

Click on the headline for the rest of the story...

I was going to skip writing on this. Since it was huge news all around the world I figured eventually it would have to saturate the American MSM... But HELL NO! They have chosen to ignore the incontrivertable evidence that bush lied to congress and is guilty of treason. Does that make the MSM as guilty of treason as the bush admin.? I think it does...

Power Line's "Modus Operandi"

It would be nice once in a while to see someone that claims to be conservative actually think like a conservative for a change. Unfortunately this does not happen too often lately. The reasoning most of the "faux" conservatives always seem to use these days are straight out of their "GOP talking points". If you cannot defend an idea declare the opposition socialist. If you cannot defend your policies declare all naysayers communist. If you cannot defend your behaviour declare your attacker a liberal.

Power Line
There is a familiar modus operandi at work in the accusation by Melody Townsel that John Bolton chased her through the halls of a Moscow hotel throwing objects and screaming threats at her in August 1994. New York Sun reporter Eli Lake has nailed most of the elements of the modus operandi in his article: "New Bolton accuser is a liberal from 'Mothers Opposing Bush.'" Lake reports:

It used to be conservative meant you would stop and think about something before you would speak about it. Now you have these radical right wingnuts that stop to check their "GOP talking points" regardless of how ignorant it makes them look. Instead of addressing the reality that bolton is a whack-job, Power Line chose the ignorant path of the wingnut.

Note to Power Line: Jeff Gannon is NOT the only prostitute that works as a "mouthpiece" for the GOP. (Tough fact to swallow, but this is you Power Line!)

Are you sure you want to read this?

For the many computer users that never bother to use anti-virus, firewall, or Ad-Aware type softwares to protect their computer from spyware and viruses, here is just another reason for you not to worry.

BBC NEWS | Technology | Bogus blogs snare fresh victims

Cyber criminals are starting to use fake blogs to snare new victims.

The bogus web journals are being used as traps that infect visitor's machines with keylogging software or viruses.

Filtering firm Websense said it had found hundreds of bogus blogs baited with all kinds of malicious software to snare the unwary.

Websense warned that the baited blogs could get past traditional security measures that try to protect people from malicious programs.

Hidden harm

The company said blogs were being used because they inadvertently offered lots of help to computer criminals.

Blogs are free and simple to use, offer users lots of storage space, can be used anonymously and most do not scan stored files for viruses and other malicious programs.

Websense said it had seen examples of some computer criminals creating a legitimate looking weblog, loading it with keylogging software or viral code...

... viruses hosted on weblogs might be a danger because they get round the filtering systems many firms have created to ensure malicious programs do not reach employees.

Users were urged to keep anti-virus and patches up to date, regularly scan machines with anti-spyware products and exercise caution when reading unsolicited messages sent via e-mail or instant messenger.

You have to keep in mind that this is just a phishing scam variation, but instead of hoping you will enter user names and passwords at the site they are looking to take control of your computer. That, of course, can still lead to identity theft once they control your computer. Another important fact to remember is that malicious code has always been hidden everywhere on the web. Hiding it on a blog is no different than websites that hide it in pictures or in links they put on their pages.

There really is not much you can do to avoid "all" spyware and viruses. The best you can do is hope that the people at companies like McAfee, Norton, Spybot destroyer, Ad-Aware, and others that help protect most computers stay on top of these problems as they develop.

If you do not have any of the needed software to protect your computer are you sure you want to read blogs? Of course you do. It is no less safe than any other web page you may visist.

DeLay's Policy Director Jumping Ship?

A senior member of Tom "the hummer" DeLay's (he really sucks!) team is leaving his side at quite an akward time. Does anyone else see this as a rat scurrying off of a sinking ship?

Yahoo! News - DeLay: She'll Be Missed; Majority Leader's Policy Director Joins K-Street Firm: "Sullivan had been with DeLay for over six years and was elevated to policy director for the Majority Leader at the beginning of 2003. Prior to that, she served as DeLay's senior appropriations adviser, developing and implementing the House leadership's appropriations and budget strategy as well as coalition strategies with grassroots groups and members of Congress. She was a key member of DeLay's leadership team throughout, as the point of contact between House leadership and Senate leadership while policy director and as the leadership contact for Republican members in the appropriations process during her stint as senior appropriations adviser."

You have to figure that things are not looking to good in the DeLay camp. His supporters deserting him, even the shills that used to love him have a hard time not noticing what he is doing, and just as the Department of Justice is stepping into the investigations a senior member of his team jumps ship for a Lawfirm. Maybe Sullivan thinks she and DeLay will need the lawyers help in the near future?