Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BobChi on Moore has had enough of House
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
Open thread 6/21
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted June 21, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
88 Comments
No Time For Sergeants
The Bush administration is a cadaver decomposing on America’s doorstep — yet no one will take responsibility for it, no one will give it a decent burial, no one even has the courage to step over it and try to get on with a nation’s decent business. This is the president who cannot be resuscitated and cannot be removed. A lame duck is a thing we’ve dealt with before. But never a pressed duck, duck confit, duck sausage, duck a l’orange. George Bush is the devil’s dinner, the entrée from Hell’s Kitchen. A dead duck in the White House is a constitutional crisis no scholar ever anticipated and no think tank ever analyzed.
The president’s Memorial Day speech at Arlington was a crowning outrage, one that pushed many a patient, hopeful citizen over the edge into incoherent despair. If the dead could literally hear and rotate in their graves, a seismic wave of Richter-scale magnitude would have rolled across the endless green lawns and white marble headstones. “Now this hallowed ground receives a new generation of heroes,” he declaimed. “I hope you find comfort in knowing that your loved ones rest in a place even more peaceful than the fields that surround us here.”
“Aaaargh,” (with seven “a”s) wrote a friend who had watched him on TV, as I have never been able to do. Hypocrisy of such concentrated toxicity seems almost superhuman. “Shame!” we cry, but in America shame died years ago and lies buried in an unmarked grave, perhaps at Arlington. I tried and failed to think of some historical analogy. It was as if a wolf had returned to the sheepfold disguised in a clerical collar, to say a few words over the slaughtered lambs whose blood was still glistening on his whiskers. I could say this more harshly, but the plainest truth is that none of these young soldiers would be dead if George Bush had done his job half as well as they tried to do theirs. Americans are an optimistic and amnesiac people who give their politicians and celebrities a dozen chances — Richard Nixon was half rehabilitated and Don Imus still may be — but what this smirking fool has done to his country will never be forgotten or forgiven.
As Baghdad disintegrated, body bags proliferated and his henchpersons’ many scandals reverberated — as his approval rating scraped bottom near an historic 25%, meaning he’s squandered the trust of at least half the people who voted for him in 2004 — President Bush faced no future but no certain reckoning. Can no one rid us of this albatross? In another culture, not yet entirely contaminated by American shamelessness, Japan’s minister of agriculture hanged himself to atone for his role in a bid-rigging scandal (and his corporate accomplice jumped off a bridge). What a painless and dignified way to rid ourselves of disgraced public servants like George Bush. But it violates Page One of the Karl Rove Manual for power maintenance, the bible of modern American politics — stonewall, spin, distract, threaten, lie outright if you must, but never confess or apologize and never, never resign. (Suicide never enters the picture.) Across the country, from Hawaii to Maine, 70-odd city councils and 14 state Democratic parties have voted to impeach both Bush and Vice President Cheney. Their arguments, well-researched, offer compelling constitutional strategies in a dozen different colors. But in Congress no one seems to have the stomach for the job. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who would move to the White House if a double impeachment succeeded, declared last winter that impeachment is “off the table.” The most convincing explanation for her reluctance, the one I keep encountering, is that Democrats are so desperate to win the presidency in 2008 that they refuse to relinquish their two most persuasive, most visible arguments for regime change. Voters have no memories, is their unspoken fear, and without these great rotting carcasses stretched out in the national foyer, America might not even remember who gave us the war.
Eighteen more months of the Mesopotamian meltdown might work out well for the Democrats, and for whichever candidate survives the infamous cannibal orgy they call the nominating process. It won’t work out so well for the nation formerly known as Iraq, where as many as a million citizens may now be dead or disabled and two million have fled the country, three thousand more every day (a third of Iraq’s physicians have fled, and 2,000 have been murdered). A genocidal civil war was not a thing Bush anticipated, though of course he should have. If the destiny of Iraqi Muslims is to slaughter each other to the last man over what most outsiders regard as arcane theology, no one and nothing is likely to save them. But congressional schemers are responsible for another class of victims who can ill afford 18 more months of partisan gridlock with a dead-duck president dangling portentously in the butcher-shop window for the benefit of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. These victims wear the uniforms of the United States armed forces.
As the president’s failed “surge” drove up the body count — April was the cruelest month yet for American soldiers, with 104 deaths, and May was close behind — the administration’s brutal disregard for its undermanned, under-equipped and exhausted fighting units in Iraq was becoming the dirtiest scandal of all, compounding the viciousness of the patriotic cant we heard on Memorial Day. Even more depressing than the neglect of the wounded at Walter Reed was Mark Benjamin’s story for Salon, documenting the fate of the walking wounded from this ghastly miscarriage of a war: they’re shipped back to the battlefront as soon as they can feed and dress themselves. Doctors at Fort Benning, Benjamin reported, held a meeting in March for the express purpose of reclassifying 75 injured infantryman of the Third Division — including some with severe psychological disabilities — so they could redeploy with their units. Unlike our other wars, most of them fought with healthy and adequate manpower, Iraq is a meat grinder for the luckless few, a black hole from which no soldier can count on walking away. Individuals serving their fourth and even fifth tours of duty are common; 80% of the Army National Guard has already been deployed in Iraq, and guardsman have suffered heavy casualties. In spite of the desperate, unscrupulous recruiters Michael Moore satirized in Fahrenheit 911, Iraq and Afghanistan are using up our able bodies much faster than they can be replaced.
Naturally many soldiers resist perpetual combat, leading to tragedies like the death of Sgt. James Dean, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan. Dean went on an armed, drunken rampage when he received his redeployment notice (“I just can’t do it anymore”), confronted deputies with his shotgun and was shot dead by a state police sniper on the front porch of his parents’ house in Maryland. Naturally morale in Iraq is at a poisonous low. After his unit killed a man setting a roadside bomb and discovered that he was an Iraqi army sergeant, Staff Sgt. David Safstrom of the 82nd Airborne unburdened himself to New York Times reporter Michael Kamber. “What are we doing here? Why are we still here?” asked Sgt. Safstrom, serving his third tour. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”
“Why are we still here?” is a question the sergeant should ask the Democratic presidential candidates, who are belatedly united in calling for a troop withdrawal but unwilling to push for impeachment or for a military draft, a measure so unpopular it might end the war overnight, along with the careers of the politicians who supported it.
Is the sergeant still there because the Democrats want to win the White House so badly? The Bush administration, of course, is deeply concerned about our escalating casualties in Iraq — concerned not to stop the bleeding, unfortunately, but to conceal it. The dwindling and restricted press corps in Baghdad has been frustrated by new regulations that prohibit any photographs of identifiable dead soldiers; even the wounded must sign permission forms before the media can publish their images. The New York Times has consistently published photographs of amputees and bleeding bodies on its front pages, but most newspapers and TV stations avoid them or find none available. Many newspapers have begun to bury the daily bombings and body counts on the back page of the first section, where they’re easy to overlook. But soon the mutilated and disfigured from this war will be among us in visible numbers, too many of them to ignore, like the unavoidable mutilated veterans painted by George Grosz and Otto Dix in the 1920s, to the horror of Germans who were trying to forget World War I.
The only military skills the authors of the Iraq war have mastered are concealment and media manipulation, which first became fine arts during the Gulf War. Now that historians, diplomats and political scientists are lining up to label the invasion of Iraq as the most terrible blunder an American president has ever committed — and argue whether that makes Bush a worse president than James Buchanan or Warren G. Harding — it seems certain that the enormity of his failure will be no secret. (“The Iraq War in all its aspects has turned into a calamity — in the way it was internally decided, externally promoted, and has been conducted — and it has already stamped the Bush presidency as a historical failure,” concludes Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s hawkish Cold War guru.) But what the media blackouts have concealed more successfully is the great crime committed against our own forces, caught between their hopeless assignment and their president’s hopeless egotism. He is simply wasting them, with no thought to what will replace them. What those forbidden photographs are concealing is a policy of passive genocide against the warrior class in America. And since our warrior class is now restricted to the working class, a class war lies at the heart of this disastrous designer war that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz — remember them? — designed to be a triumphant cakewalk.
A word about the warrior class, to which I do not belong, though I’m the son and grandson of officers. To judge from their policies, Republicans regard the volunteer army as an expendable rabble of roughnecks, rednecks and lowlifes whose loss, as Gen. Wolfe said of his Scots Highlanders at the Battle of Quebec, is “no great matter.” I admit that I don’t understand some of these warriors, like the lieutenant who kills time between deployments competing on the World Extreme Cagefighting circuit, or the Marine sergeant in Illinois who’s furious because many marines have fought in Iraq three or four times and he’s never been out of country. No doubt many warriors are naturally violent, no doubt many are highly impressionable. War is nothing more, finally, than organized insanity (why not settle disputes by arm wrestling or throwing darts, instead of cyclically butchering generations of healthy young males?) made possible by the fact that young men tend to be gullible and belligerent. As a pacifist, I can’t always understand them. But I understand, in a world infested with terrorists, jihadists, free-lance killer militias and endless, mindless wars, that we need them. Most likely we always will.
This reckless depletion of the military’s human resources, in an ill-chosen war that can only end badly, might turn out to Bush’s most fatal legacy — especially if our true and more powerful enemies are counting casualties and licking their chops. When the blue-collar warriors have been decimated, shot up and stressed out until no sane general would redeploy them, then, George, where are your reinforcements? Will a surge of sudden patriots from the MBA schools drop their laptops and lacrosse sticks and take up arms to save us? This contempt for the lives of the less well-to-do is a throwback to the Civil War with its draft riots and hired replacements, when the rich paid cash and the poor dodged bullets. In fact, this entire volunteer army that we’re destroying in the Middle East is a paid replacement for middle-class children whose parents support politicians who promise to keep them safe. It’s a typical Bush policy of cynicism and political expediency, aided and abetted by the timid Democrats, and the gross indignities these sacrificial soldiers have suffered, on and off the battlefield, betray the hollowness of the patriotic rhetoric that hails them as heroes.
Last night I watched a cable news channel for a couple of minutes, and saw an alarmingly empty suit identified as the chairman of the Republican party in New Hampshire. He was one of those cloned-looking Young Republicans — like Mitt Romney without the heroic chin — that you seem to encounter whenever you go somewhere you don’t really want to be. He was very clean, very confident and not especially bright, and if he and his litter-mates are the future of America, I feel so fortunate that most of my life is now behind me. They have that waxy half-bored look on their faces, these guys, and serve up boilerplate like someone delivering an after-dinner speech to the Kiwanis Club. If you meet one of them who mentions “the noble sacrifice” in Iraq or “fighting them in Baghdad so we don’t have to fight them here” — like this robot from New Hampshire — ask him if he urges his own children to enlist, or supports a military draft to distribute “the noble sacrifice” more equably. If he answers “no” or even equivocates, don’t just hang your head and sigh. Spit on him. The middle-class dismissal of selective service epitomizes the soiled values that prevail when a faltering republic begins to deteriorate into a kingdom of the users and the used.
(Hal Crowther’s most recent book of essays, Gather at the River, was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award in Criticism. Write him at 219 N. Churton St., Hillsborough, NC 27278.)
– From The Progressive Populist, July 1-15, 2007 –
Ah, the first multi-page page copy and paste scroll over of the day. Good morning.
LTP,Post a damn LINK !!!!!!
I hope you are all sitting down when you read this post :)
In case you are wondering, Meadowlark has not been here since Monday because his wife had a death in the family and he is busy supporting her. Her mother passed away on Monday.
Let me be the first here, Meadow, to send sympathy and best wishes to you and yours.
And in case you are shocked, SHOCKED, I say, that I have softened my attitude towards Meadowlark, you would be correct.
He took me up on my taunts to research some water issues. I’ll blog about them later. But we have had some really nice email exchanges. I could have been wrong about him. :)
Of course, we still disagree and dont really support each other’s positions, but I have found him to be kind and reasonable. Even charming.
SO, we’ll be back to war soon, I suppose, but for now…
I wish you and your family well Meadowlark.
Condolenses to Meadowlark and his family. My prayers and thoughts.
This might just be the best thing I have read about the war, democrats, congress and history.]
I know you tighty righties dont like to go to DU, but you might like this post.
It sums up MY feelings exactly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1151555
meadowlark, my condolescences and prayers go out to you and your family.
Meadow,
My sympathies and condolences.
Crowd attacks, kills man at Juneteenth festivalMan was passenger riding in vehicle that hit child during Texas observance
AUSTIN, Texas – An angry crowd beat a man to death after a vehicle he was riding in struck and injured a young girl, police said Wednesday.
Police believe 2,000 to 3,000 people were in the area for a Juneteenth celebration when the attack occurred Tuesday night.
The driver had stopped to check on the little girl at the entrance to an apartment complex when a group of men attacked him, authorities said. The passenger, David Rivas Morales, 40, got out to try to help the driver, but the crowd turned on him, said police Commander Harold Piatt.Morales was beaten to death by as many as 20 men and left lying in a parking lot, Piatt said. A preliminary autopsy listed blunt force trauma as the cause of death.
The little girl, 3 or 4 years old, was taken to a hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
The driver, who got away from the crowd, is cooperating with investigators, police said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19332252/?GT1=10056
I hope that everyone in the crowd gets indicted for murder.
I want to commend the school board in Wichita for keeping the taxpayers in the know. In Fredonia, IF the agenda is published in the paper it is on the day of the school board meeting and IF the board minutes get in the paper it is the day of the next school board meeting. Since we only have a paper published 2 times a week there is a very good chance you never know what is going on. Maybe that is the point after all.In August of 2005, the Fredonia school board granted a waiver for someone to drive a school bus that only has one eye. These minutes were never printed in the paper. Parents are unaware that on any given day the driver of their children’s bus did not have to pass a required CDL State physical. it clearly states on this physical form MONOCULAR DRIVERS ARE NOT QUALIFIED. There are also instructions to the Medical Examiner as what to do if the applicant does not meet the Federal vision standard. If you go into the website listed you will read a report from Harvard Medical School dated 10.16.98 with the conclusion that this standard should not be changed for the safety of anyone traveling on the roads. In other words, there is no waiver for a monocular driver transporting passengers as far as the Motor Carrier Regulations of the Transportation Division of The State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas. If the school district leased their buses the board could not give a waiver. If you are the passenger on a commercial bus you would not have to worry about the driver having only one eye. The question I have to ask is why are the children of USD 484 put in more danger than the children of a school district that does not own their buses? Why can 7 people who have never driven a bus make a decision that endangers children needlessly? This person did not have an “S” endorsement when hired so he had never driven a school bus or transported passengers. There is a vast difference in driving a commercial vehicle and driving a school bus. Statistics show more children are killed every year around the school bus in the “danger zone” than in other accidents. Take away your peripheral vision, get behind the wheel with 7 mirrors to watch 60+ passengers, other traffic, weather, road conditions and tell me that you are just as safe a driver as someone with 2 good eyes. I was told by the school board President “He’s driven his family all their lives”. Not in a school bus- he has not. Those were his own children and that was his decision. I should have a say in the decision made to put him as the driver of my children’s bus. I was not even given the notice that it was going to happen. The State of Kansas has a Child Passenger Safety Act that will not allow my own child to ride in the back of my truck but 7 people can put my child in a school bus with a driver that has a handicap and cannot pass a required physical? Why do we implement CDL requirements and then allow a local “good ole boy” to be exempt? Why can’t these people be charged with child endangerment? If a school bus driver leaves a child in a bus after a route they can be charged with child endangerment whether that child is harmed or not. I guarantee when he has a wreck it will make National news. Why can’t something be done before that happens? Who wants their child to be that one injured or killed? Would you as a father and grandparent want your daughter or grandchild on this bus? I can find no other school that allows this.
Ms. Russell,
This is the first instance of this practice that I’ve ever heard of in 25 years reporting on the school bus industry. Moreover, I’ve never heard of a waiver from the school board allowing an individual to drive school bus without passing a state required physical.
Bill PaulEditorSchool Transportation News
Waiver of physical requirements.
(1) (A) Any person failing to meet the requirements of subsection(g) may be permitted to be a school transportation providerfor a particular school district, if a waiver is granted by thegoverning board of that school district under this subsection.A waiver shall meet the following requirements:
(i) The person seeking the waiver, the transportationsupervisor for the school district, and the contractmanager, if applicable, shall submit a jointapplication for a waiver to the local board of education.
(ii) Each application shall be accompanied by reportsfrom two physicians, licensed to practice medicineand surgery, indicating their opinions regarding theperson’s ability to safely operate a school bus.
(iii) The application shall contain a description of thetype and size of the vehicle to be driven and anyspecial equipment required to accommodate thedriver to safely operate the vehicle, the general areaand type of roads to be traveled, distances and timeperiod contemplated, and the experience of the personin driving vehicles of the type to be driven.(B) An application for a waiver shall be granted only by unanimousapproval of the governing board.If the Federal Motor Carrier Commission will not give a waiver then 7 people who have NO qualifications in the field should not be able to.Tell me how he could be experienced in driving vehicles of the type to be driven when he had NEVER had a passenger endorsement before. He did not have one when he was hired. He could have been hired as a mechanic, his only qualification, and not transported children with the CDL he had.
How can someone with monocular vision pass a driving license eye exam with a passenger endorsement when the CDL qualifications say:Standard: At least 20/40 acuity (Snellen) in each eye with or without correction.
The Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements that The National Transportation Safety Board put out states:“Flaws in the certification process can lead to increased highway fatalities and injuries for commercial vehicle drivers, their passengers, and the motoring public.”The National Transportation Safety Board just recommended that school bus drivers not be allowed to use cell phones because of the safety issue. Is having one eye a safety issue for a school bus driver? I believe it most assuredly is. There is no prosthesis for sight.
Child passengers were about four times, and infants about eight times,more likely to cause distraction than adult passengers.”~ University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center ~
A driver’s odds of being involved in a crash or near-crash are nearly twiceas high when the driver looks away from the road for two seconds or longer.
~ AAA Foundation-Virginia Tech study ~
(What’s the odds for someone with only one eye)
Ask the Superintendents in Wichita if the liability is worth it. This is a blatant act of nepotism in a small town. I dare say that another person with one eye could not walk into the Board Office and be allowed to drive a school bus. There was a story in the news this week of a school boards decision not to pass put diplomas to some because of “cheering” at the graduation ceremony. After much publicity, they finally backed down and gave out the well earned diplomas. I believe the only thing to correct this situation is bringing it to the publicThis needs to be made known. I believe there is a story here. Please help to save a life. It’s not just a bus filled with children on the road, it’s also the other driver.
Thank you for your time
“The little girl, 3 or 4 years old, was taken to a hospital with non-life threatening injuries. ”
“Morales was beaten to death by as many as 20 men and left lying in a parking lot, Piatt said. A preliminary autopsy listed blunt force trauma as the cause of death. ”
Any justification? NO. I hope they all are executed. Maggots
I want to commend the school board in Wichita for keeping the taxpayers in the know. In Fredonia, IF the agenda is published in the paper it is on the day of the school board meeting and IF the board minutes get in the paper it is the day of the next school board meeting. Since we only have a paper published 2 times a week there is a very good chance you never know what is going on. Maybe that is the point after all.In August of 2005, the Fredonia school board granted a waiver for someone to drive a school bus that only has one eye. These minutes were never printed in the paper. Parents are unaware that on any given day the driver of their children’s bus did not have to pass a required CDL State physical. it clearly states on this physical form MONOCULAR DRIVERS ARE NOT QUALIFIED. There are also instructions to the Medical Examiner as what to do if the applicant does not meet the Federal vision standard. If you go into the website listed you will read a report from Harvard Medical School dated 10.16.98 with the conclusion that this standard should not be changed for the safety of anyone traveling on the roads. In other words, there is no waiver for a monocular driver transporting passengers as far as the Motor Carrier Regulations of the Transportation Division of The State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas. If the school district leased their buses the board could not give a waiver. If you are the passenger on a commercial bus you would not have to worry about the driver having only one eye. The question I have to ask is why are the children of USD 484 put in more danger than the children of a school district that does not own their buses? Why can 7 people who have never driven a bus make a decision that endangers children needlessly? This person did not have an “S” endorsement when hired so he had never driven a school bus or transported passengers. There is a vast difference in driving a commercial vehicle and driving a school bus. Statistics show more children are killed every year around the school bus in the “danger zone” than in other accidents. Take away your peripheral vision, get behind the wheel with 7 mirrors to watch 60+ passengers, other traffic, weather, road conditions and tell me that you are just as safe a driver as someone with 2 good eyes. I was told by the school board President “He’s driven his family all their lives”. Not in a school bus- he has not. Those were his own children and that was his decision. I should have a say in the decision made to put him as the driver of my children’s bus. I was not even given the notice that it was going to happen. The State of Kansas has a Child Passenger Safety Act that will not allow my own child to ride in the back of my truck but 7 people can put my child in a school bus with a driver that has a handicap and cannot pass a required physical? Why do we implement CDL requirements and then allow a local “good ole boy” to be exempt? Why can’t these people be charged with child endangerment? If a school bus driver leaves a child in a bus after a route they can be charged with child endangerment whether that child is harmed or not. I guarantee when he has a wreck it will make National news. Why can’t something be done before that happens? Who wants their child to be that one injured or killed? Would you as a father and grandparent want your daughter or grandchild on this bus? I can find no other school that allows this.
Ms. Russell,
This is the first instance of this practice that I’ve ever heard of in 25 years reporting on the school bus industry. Moreover, I’ve never heard of a waiver from the school board allowing an individual to drive school bus without passing a state required physical.
Bill PaulEditorSchool Transportation News
Waiver of physical requirements.
(1) (A) Any person failing to meet the requirements of subsection(g) may be permitted to be a school transportation providerfor a particular school district, if a waiver is granted by thegoverning board of that school district under this subsection.A waiver shall meet the following requirements:
(i) The person seeking the waiver, the transportationsupervisor for the school district, and the contractmanager, if applicable, shall submit a jointapplication for a waiver to the local board of education.
(ii) Each application shall be accompanied by reportsfrom two physicians, licensed to practice medicineand surgery, indicating their opinions regarding theperson’s ability to safely operate a school bus.
(iii) The application shall contain a description of thetype and size of the vehicle to be driven and anyspecial equipment required to accommodate thedriver to safely operate the vehicle, the general areaand type of roads to be traveled, distances and timeperiod contemplated, and the experience of the personin driving vehicles of the type to be driven.(B) An application for a waiver shall be granted only by unanimousapproval of the governing board.If the Federal Motor Carrier Commission will not give a waiver then 7 people who have NO qualifications in the field should not be able to.Tell me how he could be experienced in driving vehicles of the type to be driven when he had NEVER had a passenger endorsement before. He did not have one when he was hired. He could have been hired as a mechanic, his only qualification, and not transported children with the CDL he had.
How can someone with monocular vision pass a driving license eye exam with a passenger endorsement when the CDL qualifications say:Standard: At least 20/40 acuity (Snellen) in each eye with or without correction.
The Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements that The National Transportation Safety Board put out states:“Flaws in the certification process can lead to increased highway fatalities and injuries for commercial vehicle drivers, their passengers, and the motoring public.”The National Transportation Safety Board just recommended that school bus drivers not be allowed to use cell phones because of the safety issue. Is having one eye a safety issue for a school bus driver? I believe it most assuredly is. There is no prosthesis for sight.
Child passengers were about four times, and infants about eight times,more likely to cause distraction than adult passengers.”~ University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center ~
A driver’s odds of being involved in a crash or near-crash are nearly twiceas high when the driver looks away from the road for two seconds or longer.
~ AAA Foundation-Virginia Tech study ~
(What’s the odds for someone with only one eye)
Ask the Superintendents in Wichita if the liability is worth it. This is a blatant act of nepotism in a small town. I dare say that another person with one eye could not walk into the Board Office and be allowed to drive a school bus. There was a story in the news this week of a school boards decision not to pass put diplomas to some because of “cheering” at the graduation ceremony. After much publicity, they finally backed down and gave out the well earned diplomas. I believe the only thing to correct this situation is bringing it to the publicThis needs to be made known. I believe there is a story here. Please help to save a life. It’s not just a bus filled with children on the road, it’s also the other driver.
Thank you for your time
Someone likes to triple click instead of waiting. :)
Imus was in the news for a stupid comment for two weeks. This guy was beaten to death. Watch how long it stays news…
Guess how many will be charged for his death… I’m guessing exactly zero.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to Meadowlark and his family.
Thanks for the heads up farmgrrl.
Hank
OK children,
So far the first annual shooting match is lined up like this:
For the conservatives:
Hank, Nathan and GMC70.
For the liberals:
Ben and his boy.
For the Libitarians:
.morg and his boy
Pretty good! Three teams and three father and son combos!
I’ll come up with some prospective dates later today.
Hank
I have emailed Meadowlark privately in the past, we just don’t see eye to eye on many issues. I feel very passionately about the issues as does he, so we will continue to butt heads. But thank you for the heads up on his family. I’m sorry for your loss, ML.
I’ll try to attend to be the cheering and jeering section Hank. :)
Whatcha Shooting Hank?
No Cheney incidences right?
Hello, sports fans.
Today’s Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour is a real doozy.
Remember when nobody could fly after 9-11, 2001. Nobody, absolutely nobody could fly. Every plane was grounded.
Then it turns out that a few planes did fly. They were planes chartered by Saudi Arabians from the same country as 15 of the 19 terrorist.
Some of those who flew were even RELATIVES of the terrorists.
Okay . . . all of this is old news, which is why it is not the scandal du jour.
Turns out there’s more. Judicial Watch, a group of attorneys in Texas, filed for the FBI report on these mystery flights under the Freedom of Information Act.
And they got it. And what did they find under the black marker which had hidden the name of the man who had chartered at least one of these flights–it was chartered by none other than Osama bin Laden.
Hmmm . . .
Seems like I’ve heard that name somewhere before . . . where was it . . . now I remember . . . he’s THE HEAD OF AL QAEDA
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released new documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) related to the “expeditious departure” of Saudi nationals, including members of the bin Laden family, from the United States following the 9/11 attacks. According to one of the formerly confidential documents, dated 9/21/2001, terrorist Osama bin Laden may have chartered one of the Saudi flights.
The document states: “ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN…THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND.” The plane was allowed to depart the United States after making four stops to pick up passengers, ultimately landing in Paris where all passengers disembarked on 9/20/01, according to the document.
http://judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml
This is more evidence of the incestuous relationship the Bush Family Evil Empire has maintained with the medieval monarchy known as Saudi Arabia.
Father of Worst President Ever even sat on the board of the Carlyle Group when they counted as one of their most important clients the BIN LADEN FAMILY.
Three thousand Americans died on 9-11, but thank God! the Bin Ladens’ (including Osama) are all safe.
And their investments properly cared for by Daddy Bush and his investment firm.
This has been another installment of the Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour.
WCE (Worst Congress Ever)
New Gallup data show confidence in Congress at all time lowJust 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.
This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/2007/06/what_do_hmos_an.html
While I am not a great believer in polls (numbers don;t lie but pollsters do) it is still an interesting little piece of informaiton. So BUsh, whose confidence levelis 30%, has twice the confidence level of Congress at 14%. Regardless of how you cut it, that’s what the polls say
Hmm… That’s kind of old news. Obviously Osama Bin Laden didn’t charter an exit flight. And, well I’ll be darned, The Saudi flights were approve by Richard Clark. Remember him? He of the lucrative book deal for his administration bashing book. I didn’t know that.
Another half-truth scandal monger bit, brought to you by CapnAmerica.
Well, right, LJ, but you have to see the full meaning of this.
The right-wing hates Congress because they’re Democratic.
The left-wing hates Congress because they thought the Democratic majority would actually DO SOMETHING about ending the war, which is why we supported them.
Both sides are united in their contempt.
Outlander–
I thought the President was ultimately in command.
Sorry.
Let’s just shift the blame to whatever incompetent scape-goat we can find.
Yup, that’s the Republican way . . .
And I must say, they never run out of incompetent people, do they?
Littlejohn,
The poll numbers that are more significant though are the ones district-by-district. Everyone hates the other guy’s congressman. But what matters is whether or not they intend to vote to reelect the one they have.
Well, right, LJ, but you have to see the full meaning of this.
The right-wing hates Congress because they’re Democratic.
The left-wing hates Congress because they thought the Democratic majority would actually DO SOMETHING about ending the war, which is why we supported them.
Both sides are united in their contempt.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | June 21, 2007 at 10:59 AM
You do have a point. But then again, for all the Bush Bashing,the democrats hate him because he is, the Real republicans hate him because is incompetent and not a real republican, (he never really was) he still holds more confidence than the Congress.
It is really a sad commentary on American politics today
Tom-
i agree. Everybody hates the other guys crook, but loves his own. The Huey P. Long method of government
MSNBC did a story on journalists who contributed to political campaigns. Most contributed to liberal or Democratic causes including KAKE-TV anchor Susan Peters. Here’s what MSNBC reported:
(D) ABC affiliate in Wichita, Susan Peters, anchor, $600 to America Coming Together in two donations in 2004 and 2005. She anchors the news at 5, 6 and 10 p.m. America Coming Together funded get-out-the-vote drives to defeat President Bush in 2004.
Peters didn’t return calls.
KAKE news director David Grant said, “To be honest, I don’t have an answer for you. Can I get back to you?” He didn’t call back.
LJ–
I have to respectfully disagree.
Something like 67 percent of Republicans APPROVE of GW, still.
The number of people who admit to being Republican however is dropping noticably . . .
Outlander–
You want more? Here’s more:
About 140 Saudis, including around 24 members of the bin Laden family, are passengers in these flights. The identities of most of these passengers are not known. However, some of the passengers include:
The son of the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan. Sultan is sued in August 2002 for alleged complicity in the 9/11 plot. He is alleged to have contributed at least $6 million since 1994 to four charities that finance al-Qaeda.
Khalil bin Laden. He has been investigated by the Brazilian government for possible terrorist connections.
Abdullah bin Laden and Omar bin Laden, cousins of bin Laden. Abdullah was the US director of the Muslim charity World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). The governments of India, Pakistan, Philippines, and Bosnia have all accused WAMY of funding terrorism. These two relatives were investigated by the FBI in 1996 (see February-September 11, 1996) in a case involving espionage, murder, and national security. Their case is reopened on September 19, right after they leave the country. Remarkably, four of the 9/11 hijackers briefly live in the town of Falls Church, Virginia, three blocks from the WAMY office headed by Abdullah bin Laden.
Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen. He is a prominent Saudi official who is in the same hotel as three of the hijackers the night before 9/11. He leaves on one of the first flights to Saudi Arabia before the FBI can properly interview him about this.
Akberali Moawalla. A Pakistani and business partner of Osama’s brother Yeslam bin Laden. In 2000, a transfer of over $250 million was made from a bank account belonging jointly to Moawalla and Osama bin Laden.(see 2000).
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091301phantomflight#a091301phantomflight
CapnAmerica is part of the 27 percenter group of the Democratic Congress Poll Assessment. How low is that? :)
Just imagine for one second what the right-wing noise machine, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O, Scarbourgh, Malkin, Coulter et al. would be saying if the President’s name were “Clinton” instead of “Bush” when this happened–and if Clinton had let 140 Saudis some with known ties to terrorism fly out of the country a week after 9-11.
CapnAmerica-I am not really sure that 67% of all Republicans agree with Bush, or that many see no alternative. I do not agree with him, although I voted for him twice. Given the same election possiblities, I honestly do not know what I would do. Bush has certainly abandoned many republican principles, andhas fumbled the war in Iraq, has fumbled the illegal immirgration issue, has fumbled….. and on. However, it seems the alternatives, really… aren’t. Ron Paul is interesting, but will have to withstand the heat of microscopic lens in and on his campaign. I think politican in general have a vry low confidence factor, and for the most part, deservedly so.
Capn: Why are you recycling old news? OLd news, new spin. Shall we start Bill Clinton again? Oh, BTW I read that Richard Clark, who approved the Saudi flights, was a holdover from the Clinton administration. Is that true?
As I recall, Mr. Clark was a real competent, stand up guy, a god of national security when his book was all the subject of the blog. Now, he is just another; “incompetent scape-goat”, as you put it. I’m afraid I’m going to need a scorecard to keep track.
outlander,
Capn recycles old news, because he will hope people will forget that most of his posts have been proven to be mantras of hate and “blame America First” hatchet jobs.
If Capn would like I can address the Saudis flying out situation. But he will most likely decline as he will once again look a like a fool for posting such.
Funny that, outlander.
Because Clarke told the 9-11 commission that he DID NOT APPROVE the flights and believed instead that it was “Inter-Agency Crisis Management Group, but most likely it was the White House Chief of Staff’s office or the State Department.”
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/index.htm
Nice try though. I’m sure you really did hear this on Rush or somewhere.
Because that’s what they do–they f***ing lie.
Read Clark’s interview in Vanity Fair and other publications where he says he did.
So, is Richard Clark really the “incompetent scapegoat” that you called him, Capn?
Okay, outlander–
Using Lexis-Nexus, I searched Vanity Fair articles from 2001 to 2007 for Richard Clarke.
I got two hits. Neither one of them has anything like what you say, that Clarke or anyone else said that Clarke approved of Saudi flights after 9-11.
Here are the two articles I looked at–
Vanity Fair, July 2004,
SECTION: FEATURE; Clarke’s Challenge; No. 527; Pg. 124
Vanity Fair, November 2004
SECTION: FEATURE; The Path to 9/11; No. 531; Pg. 326
But feel free to post a link, if you’ve got one.
If you don’t, then man up and admit you were wrong.
It takes a lot of balls for someone to publicly admit they are wrong.
The first article did say this though–
“Against All Enemies” recounts how the administration was asleep at the switch, not taking proper stock of Clarke’s repeated warnings or those of the C.I.A., which that summer was receiving escalating intelligence reports of al-Qaeda activity. In the spring of 2001, Clarke sent Rice and N.S.C. staffers an e-mail saying al-Qaeda “was trying to kill Americans, to have hundreds of dead in the streets of America.”
The final straw for Clarke came with what he sees as the administration’s wrongheaded obsession with invading Iraq. He views it as a costly, dangerous distraction that merely handed al-Qaeda the psychological arsenal it had previously lacked, by turning the more moderate Muslim community against us. “We played right into Osama bin Laden’s hands,” Clarke says. “He told the [moderate] Muslim world we’d go in and attack a neutral, oil-rich country and take it over, and what did we do? Exactly that.”
Brian–
It does indeed take balls . . . that’s why you’re hearing deafening silence from outlander.
No balls.
Another right-winger who believed their spew backed up by exactly NOTHING.
Alright, who dropped the G bomb on Jerusalem!http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070621/wl_nm/israel_gaypride_dc_2;_ylt=AmVWcYMkYtxUaeqS7kysabZlM3wV
Bin Laden may have arranged family’s US exit: FBI docs
AFPPublished: Wednesday June 20, 2007http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bin_Laden_may_have_arranged_family__06202007.htm( That’s OSAMA bin Laden they’re talking about folks! With what we know of the Bushies competence now, is it surprising? )
Osama bin Laden may have chartered a plane that carried his family members and Saudi nationals out of the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks, said FBI documents released Wednesday.
The papers, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, were made public by Judicial Watch, a Washington-based group that investigates government corruption.
One FBI document referred to a Ryan Air 727 airplane that departed Los Angeles International Airport on September 19, 2001, and was said to have carried Saudi nationals out of the United States.
“The plane was chartered either by the Saudi Arabian royal family or Osama bin Laden,” according to the document, which was among 224 pages posted online.
The flight made stops in Orlando, Florida; Washington, DC; and Boston, Massachusetts and eventually left its passengers in Paris the following day.
In all, the documents detail six flights between September 14 and September 24 that evacuated Saudi nationals and bin Laden family members, Judicial Watch said in a statement.
“Incredibly, not a single Saudi national nor any of the bin Laden family members possessed any information of investigative value,” Judicial Watch said.
“These documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI’s investigation of the Saudi flights.
“For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight … on another document the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 to 22 passengers on the same flight.”
Asked about the documents’ assertion that either bin Laden or the Saudi royals ordered the flight, an FBI spokesman said the information was inaccurate.
“There is no new information here. Osama bin Laden did not charter a flight out of the US,” FBI special agent Richard Kolko said.
“This is just an inflammatory headline by Judicial Watch to catch people’s attention. This was thoroughly investigated by the FBI.”
Kolko pointed to the 9-11 Commission Report, which was the book-length result of an official probe into the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people.
“No political intervention was found. And most important, the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals that left on chartered flights. This is all available in the report,” Kolko said.
On the issue of flights of Saudi nationals leaving the United States, the 9-11 report said: “We found no evidence of political intervention” to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals.
The commission also said: “Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.”
Meredith Diliberto, an attorney with Judicial Watch, said that her group had seen a first version of the documents in 2005, although the FBI had heavily redacted the texts to black out names, including all references to bin Laden.
Nevertheless, unedited footnotes in the texts allowed lawyers to determine that bin Laden’s name had been redacted. They pressed the issue in court and in November 2006, the FBI was ordered to re-release the documents.
Diliberto said mention that “either” bin Laden or Saudi royals had chartered the flight “really threw us for a loop.”
“When you combine that with some of the family members not being interviewed, we found it very disturbing.”
Before I provide the information that you requested on what Clark did, let me nuke your initial premise:
“Remember when nobody could fly after 9-11, 2001. Nobody, absolutely nobody could fly. Every plane was grounded.” CapnAmerica
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp
snopes says that you are wrong, wrong wrong.
Chew on that one. I’ll be back with Clark stuff.
Capn: You know what, the snopes article also quotes the 911 commission and they note that no evidence of anyone above Richard Clark participated in the decision. the implication being of course that Clark participated.
Well in reading on the 911 commission report nukes the rest of your alleged scandal. Ouch!
Pretty good stuff.
“What I am aware of is that sometime after 9/11, in the days immediately thereafter, the Saudi embassy requested to evacuate some of its nationals because it feared there would be retribution. That information came to me and I was asked to approve it. I said no, I would not approve it, until the FBI approved it. And I asked the FBI to approve it, to look at the names of people on the flight manifests, and the FBI approved it.” – Richard Clark
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/24/clarke/index.html?pn=3
Other articles are even more specific as to Clarks approval.
Time for CapnAmerica to apologize for dredging up old stories, totally misrepresenting it, and passing it off as something new.
outtie,
Don’t hold your breath brother.
Okay, interesting.
Yes, according to the 9-11 Commission, airspace was opened on 9-13 and all the Saudi flights were on or after that date.
So I was wrong.
See how easy it is, outlander. When one makes an error in fact and one sees that error, one says, “I was wrong.”
However, your assertion that Clarke okayed the flights was not supported by the 9-11 commission. They only said that “no one above the level of Clarke” okayed the flights.
Not at all the same thing.
Also Clarke’s transcript before the Commission verifies him saying that he DIDN’T approve it.
And your citation to Vanity Fair was spurious.
If you find a quote of Clarke saying “I okayed the flights” from a reputable source, I’ll be the first one to admit I was wrong.
The question is still will you do the same if you can’t?
And Sollie, don’t hold your breath.
And you know what else is funny about that 9-11 Commission report?
They had access to these same files that said Osama bin Laden may have chartered a plane–that people on the plane had ties to terrorist funding groups–that many of them were bin Laden relatives etc. and they didn’t have a bit of a problem with it.
Nothing to see here.
Seeing a memo like the above, the question is who are you going to believe? a bunch of partisan hacks or your own lying eyes?
I smell “Fahrenheit 911″ as the instigator of this. I bet Capn has the full DVD set and fold out. :D
Excellent detective work outlander. :)
For anyone interested in autism research:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6221064.stm
Why shouldn’t the approval rating for Congress be low. They didn’t do what the majority of Americans wanted, cut the funding for the Iraq occupation. They lost my support. Think I’ll go re-register as an Independent and vote for Bloomberg.
If you find a quote of Clarke saying “I okayed the flights” from a reputable source, I’ll be the first one to admit I was wrong.
The question is still will you do the same if you can’t?
Outlander? outlander?
Anyone?
Thursday, June 21, 2007Administration Oversight
Vice President Exempts His Office from the Requirements for Protecting Classified Information.
The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”
As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President’s position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President’s staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President’s executive order.
In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: “I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. … [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials.”
A fact sheet prepared by Chairman Waxman describes other instances in which the Vice President’s office has sought to avoid oversight and accountability.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1371According to the Constitution the Vice-President is the President of the Senate, but is elected as part of the executive branch. “The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch”–well then he should sit full time in the President of the Senate’s chair.
What has happen to the “checks and Balances” part of our Constitution. Cheney doesn’t think he is accountable to anyone.
If someone can tell me how the Dems are supposed to make all these changes despite not having enough votes to do it, plus the President’s veto, I’ll kiss your feet.
Till then, the republicans are the obstructionists, they’re fillibustering (gasp, that thing they wanted to outlaw, remember). So stop blaming the dems and put the blame where it belongs.
The official response for kscitydude’s post:
Megan McGinn, Cheney’s deputy press secretary, says the vice president’s office is exempt.
“This matter has been thoroughly reviewed,” McGinn told U.S. News, “and it has been determined that reporting requirements do not apply to the office of the vice president, which has both legislative and executive functions.”
You’d make a great politician Capn. Deflect and deny. Offense is the best defense. Half truths.
As you know, I didn’t ever contend that Clarke said “I okayed the flights”. Thus, your whole challenge is irrelevant.
But do you deny the implication in the Slate article? He admitted everything and did everything but say, “I authorized it”.
Oh what the heck. I feel like I’m piling on. Here is the article that quotes the Vanity Fair article, September 4, 2003.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34405
“Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country,” Clarke, who headed the Counterrorism Security Group of the National Security Council, told Vanity Fair. He said he did not recall who requested approval for the flight, but believes it was either the FBI or the State Department. He said he, in turn, checked with FBI officials, who gave the go ahead.
“So I said, ‘Fine, let it happen,’” Clarke told the magazine, adding that he asked the bureau to make sure no one “inappropriate” was leaving the country.
Capn?
The power of the Presidency is vested in the _President._ The Vice President is _not_ granted executive powers by the Constitution, except in very specific circumstances.
Any act or law or executive order that purports to give executive power to the Vice President is, on its face, flatly unconstitutional.
Might want to read this Tom, tis interesting.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp
Hank,
I do hope WSClark would show up, I’d like to see him prove his comment in reference to Nathan. :D
“I can kick your butt and your Daddy’s butt and I can do it while making dinner, cleaning the house, checking my friends car out, drinking a few beers, having sex with my girlfriend and watching TV.”Posted By WSClark | 4/8/07 12:01 AM
Okay, outlander.
I have searched the databases that should have this quote and can’t find it.
August, Sept, and Oct 2003 Vanity Fair magazine do not show any references to Clark when searched by Lexis-Nexus or Ebsco. Nor can I get any hits when I search for that quote.
World Net Daily is not a reputable source by itself.
If I recall though, Michael Moore took a lot of heat for saying that Saudis and Bin Ladens were quietly flown out of the country and it turns out years later that he was exactly right.
“I do hope WSClark would show up, I’d like to see him prove his comment in reference to Nathan. :D”
And of course, that was a rhetorical statement regarding posting on the blog. The offer remains open.
So what was your point in copying and pasting that particular post, Republank?
Given that Mr. Price only posted a comment about his shooting match and condolences for Meadow, I fail to see what purpose you may have for bringing that up.
Oh, and use your real nic, not another fake one.
“I do hope WSClark would show up, I’d like to see him prove his comment in reference to Nathan. :D”
And of course, that was a rhetorical statement regarding posting on the blog. The offer remains open.
So what was your point in copying and pasting that particular post, Republank?
Given that Mr. Price only posted a comment about his shooting match and condolences for Meadow, I fail to see what purpose you may have for bringing that up.
Oh, and use your real nic, not another fake one.
Okay, outlander.
I could not find the original article from Vanity Fair that this was supposed to be taken from.
I looked at all 2003, Aug, Sept, and Oct 2003 specifically searching both for Clarke’s name and the quote in Lexis-Nexus and Ebsco.
I’m not saying your source is wrong. I’m just saying that I should have been able to find it if it were there.
All the other references on the open web just linked back to WorldNet Daily, which is not reputable.
I may have to go to a library with paper copies to see what the deal is.
It’s needling you for a response, WSC.
Trollpuke is getting a little bored with actual posts and wants to make it all about it, as usual.
When you see it walking down the street,
And you chance to meet,
WALK ON BY DA DA DAH DA DAHH DA
WALK ON BY
What’s my real nic WSClark?
The neighbors have all signed a petition to demand that I not sing in public, Capn’.
I am trying, but every once in a while, I just have to burst out in a few lines of………….
Make believe that you don’t see the tears just let him grievein private ’cause each time it see us it breaks down and cries…
And walk on by
And walk on by
And walk on by
“Megan McGinn, Cheney’s deputy press secretary, says the vice president’s office is exempt.<
Okay, then it must be true if Megan McGinn says so. Ha,ha.
Moore’s film was accurate — commercial flights resumed on Sept 13th.
‘Factual Back-Up for Fahrenheit 9/11: Section Two’http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=17“FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th….NOTE: It should be noted that even though the film does not make the allegation, strong evidence has recently come to light that at least one private plane flew to pick up Saudi nationals while private flights were still grounded.”
More at link, near bottom of page.
This morning of CNN The First Lady exaggerated the # of Iraqi refugees that the US has taken in, “We welcome many of those refugees, both from Iraq and Afghanistan into the United States.”Syria alone has taken in 1.4 million Iraqis out of the reported two million plus.The US has welcome only sixty-nine since the beginning of 2007 which brings the total Iraqi refugees to fewer than 500 since the invasion. I guess that’s “many” in the eyes of Laura Bush.
From the NewsMax.com StaffFor the story behind the story…
Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:10 p.m. EDTRon Paul Censored from Iowa Debates
GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul has been excluded from an upcoming political forum in Iowa on the grounds that he is not a “credible” candidate.
The event, sponsored by Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian
Alliance, is set for June 30 in Des Moines.
GOP candidates who will speak at the forum include Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo.
But Paul, a Texas congressman, was left out because the invitation went only to those candidates who are “credible,” said Ed Failor Jr., vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief.
“To plan an event of this scope, we invited credible Democratic and credible Republican candidates,” he told the Des Moines Register.
“We had to draw the line somewhere.”
No Democrats accepted the invitation.
The exclusion of Paul, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, sparked protests from several Paul supporters, who sent e-mails to the Register calling the decision “evil” and “fascist.”
Paul’s campaign chairman Kent Snyder appeared with Failor on an Iowa radio station and acknowledged that Paul has no Iowa campaign office. But he said: “Failor’s explanation is weak . . . People want to see Ron Paul.”
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
Paul made the mistake of telling the truth in a debate and now he’s not credible. I saw him interviewed by Bill Mahur on his HBO show and you should have heard the applauds that came from the liberal audience as he came out, during the interview, and as he walked off the stage.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/21/151604.shtml?s=ic
MEDIAConservatives Dominate The Airwaves
“Conservative Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) raised a furor last week when he called out the right-wing radio hosts working to defeat comprehensive immigration reform. “Talk radio is running America,” Lott said. “We have to deal with that problem.” Indeed, despite the dramatic expansion of viewing and listening options for consumers today, traditional radio remains one of the most widely used media formats in America, reaching an estimated 50 million listeners each week on more than 1,700 stations across the nation. More importantly, talk radio is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives. The Center for American Progress and Free Press yesterday released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. The results confirm the stunning lack of diversity in talk radio, and raise serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans. ”
That’s funny. The Republicans love the conservative talk show as long as they are “carry their water”
Outlander and Capn
I found the page in the 911 Commission Report that refers to the Flight of the Saudis leaving the United States.
I’ll summarize:
(1) There was no evidence that any flights domestic or international that left before Sept 13,2001.(2) We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in the decision on the departure of Saudi Nationals.(3) Clarke told us, “I asked the FBI, Dale Watson to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people and to get back to me.(4) And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me.(5) Clarke added, “I had no recollection of having clearing it with anyone at the White House.
So it appears Richard Clarke did approve the Saudis leaving the United States.
And, well I’ll be darned, The Saudi flights were approve by Richard Clark.
As you know, I didn’t ever contend that Clarke said “I okayed the flights”. Thus, your whole challenge is irrelevant.
*****
Ah, okay, outlander. I thought you were saying that Clarke was somehow responsible for the Saudis flying without getting questioned etc. etc.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Also, I was able to find the original of the Vanity Fair article using ProQuest.
It’s called “Saving the Saudis” by Craig Unger, Oct. 2003.
1. Your newsmax source garbles the original a little. Here’s what was in the VF article–
“Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country,” Clarke says. “My role was to say that it can’t happen until the F.B.I. approves it. And so the F.B.I. was asked-we had a live connection to the F.B.I.-and we asked the F.B.I. to make sure that they were satisfied that everybody getting on that plane was someone that it was O.K. to leave. And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said, ‘Fine, let it happen.’”
In the original, it’s clear that Clarke is only signing off after the FBI signs off.
Richard Clarke’s approval for repatriating the Saudis had been conditional upon the F.B.I.’s vetting them. “I asked [the F.B.I.] to make sure that no one inappropriate was leaving,” he says. “I asked them if they had any objection to the entire event-to Saudis leaving the country at a time when aircraft were banned from flying.”
It’s also clear in the original that Clarke was talking about ONE FLIGHT with THREE SAUDIS on it.
That doesn’t account for the other 150 or so . . .
2. The NewsMax account also has Clarke saying that people above him were the ultimate source of the flights out.
“According to Clarke, top White House officials personally approved the repatriation plan, which is thought to have been organized by Saudi ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Vanity Fair reports Prince Bandar met with President George W. Bush on Sept. 13, 2001, but it is not known whether the plan was discussed.”
3. The FBI has claimed all along it had nothing to do with these flights.
That contention is strongly disputed by the document that Justice Watch recently got through a FOIA action.
Lastly, when I said “I was wrong” above it turns out I was only partly wrong.
The Saudis were taking a PRIVATE flight on the 13th, and private flights were still grounded.
See the Vanity Fair article:
When he [Agent Grossi] and Perez met at the terminal, a woman laughed at Grossi for even thinking he would be flying that day. Commercial flights had slowly begun to resume, but at 10:57 a.m. the F.A.A. had issued another notice to airmen, a reminder that private aviation was still prohibited. Three private planes violated the ban that day, and in each case a pair of jet fighters quickly forced the aircraft down. As far as private planes were concerned, America was still grounded. “I was told it would take White House approval,” says Grossi.
Then one of the pilots arrived. “Here’s your plane,” he told Grossi. “Whenever you’re ready to go.”
Unbeknownst to Dan Grossi, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the 52-year-old Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, had been in Washington orchestrating the exodus of about 140 Saudis scattered throughout the country who were members of, or close to, two enormous families. One was the House of Saud, the family that rules the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and that, owing to its vast oil reserves, is the richest family in the world. The other was the ruling family’s friends and allies the bin Ladens, who, in addition to owning a multi-billion-dollar construction conglomerate, had spawned the notorious terrorist Osama bin Laden.
Thanks to the bin Ladens’ extremely close relationship with the House of Saud, the family’s huge construction company, the Saudi Binladin Group, had won contracts to restore the holy mosques in Mecca and Medina, two of the greatest icons in all of Islam.
The repatriation of the Saudis is far more than just a case of wealthy Arabs being granted special status by the White House under extraordinary conditions. For one thing, in the two years since September 11, a number of highly placed Saudis, including both bin Ladens and members of the royal family, have come under fire for their alleged roles in financing terrorism. Four thousand relatives of the victims of 9/11 have filed a $1 trillion civil suit in Washington, D.C., charging the House of Saud, the bin Ladens, and hundreds of others with wrongful death, conspiracy, and racketeering for having contributed tens of millions of dollars to charities that were al-Qaeda fronts.
Newsweek has reported that Prince Bandar’s wife, perhaps unwittingly, sent thousands of dollars to charities that ended up funding the hijackers. In addition, F.B.I. documents marked “Secret” indicate that two members of the bin Laden family, which has repeatedly distanced itself from Osama bin Laden, were under investigation by the bureau for suspected associations with an Islamic charity designated as a terrorist support group.
******
Tomorrow’s Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour will investigate the long and profitable relationship between GW and his rich Arab-terrorist pals . . .
More on Juneteenth crimes and arrests:A 33-year-old man has a broken tooth and cuts all over his face after a group of teenagerspulled him from his car and beat him following Milwaukee, WI’s Juneteenth celebration, whereteenagers also damaged several cars. The injured man was released after hospital treatment. Also, aMilwaukee policeman needed 3 stitches in his face after a 17-year-old girl punched and kicked him when he tried to break up a fight. Also, an 18-year-old manfired 5 shots into a crowd, injuring one man.Meanwhile, Syracuse, NY’s Juneteenth celebration wasordered shut down by police three hours early after fights broke out among youths at the event, as 2 were stabbed and shots rang out.Nine were shot in 4 incidents in Buffalo, NY since Friday, just prior to Juneteenth celebrations, with no arrests.Several arrests were made during Saturday’s celebration in Hattiesburg, MS involving misdemeanor gun possession charges, and one felony arrest of a suspect possessing a weapon after a prior felony conviction.
Well, well, well: Bush’s approval is now at 26%.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19352087/site/newsweek
That’s the lowest number registered for any President except Nixon. And with regard to this particular number, Carter at his worst (28%) still kicks George’s ass.
How’s that feel, Republibitches? Your boy’s gettin’ his ass kicked by JIMMY CARTER.
Well Well,
I quote the 911 Commission report and Capn quotes Vanity Fair.
Who ya gonna believe? :D
“I quote the 911 Commission report and Capn quotes Vanity Fair.Who ya gonna believe?”
Republican, I believe Vanity Fair. Anyone with common sense knows that the 911 Commission report was a white wash.
Ditto. With the dems in the majority role, we are finally getting some oversight out of congress, long time coming.
I don’t think the dems. will flinch this time:Bush, Senate head for showdown on domestic spying By Thomas FerraroThu Jun 21, 5:51 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President George W. Bush headed toward a showdown with the Senate over his domestic spying program on Thursday after lawmakers approved subpoenas for documents the White House declared off-limits.
ADVERTISEMENT”The information the committee is requesting is highly classified and not information we can make available,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in signaling a possible court fight.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the subpoenas in a 13-3 vote following 18 months of futile efforts to obtain documents related to Bush’s contested justification for warrantless surveillance begun after the September 11 attacks.
Three Republicans joined 10 Democrats in voting to authorize the subpoenas, which may be issued within days.
“We are asking not for intimate operational details but for the legal justifications,” said Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. “We have been in the dark too long.”
Authorization of the subpoenas set up another possible courtroom showdown between the White House and the Democratic-led Congress, which has vowed to unveil how the tight-lipped Republican administration operates.
Last week, congressional committees subpoenaed two of Bush’s former aides in a separate investigation into the firing last year of nine of the 93 U.S. attorneys.
Bush could challenge the subpoenas, citing a right of executive privilege his predecessors have invoked with mixed success to keep certain materials private and prevent aides from testifying.
Bush authorized warrantless surveillance of people inside the United States with suspected ties to terrorists shortly after the September 11 attacks. The program, conducted by the National Security Agency, became public in 2005.
WARTIME POWERS
Critics charge the program violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires warrants. Bush said he could act without warrants under wartime powers.
In January, the administration abandoned the program and agreed to get approval of the FISA court for its electronic surveillance. Bush and Democrats still are at odds over revisions he wants in the FISA law.
“The White House … stubbornly refuses to let us know how it interprets the current law and the perceived flaws that led it to operate a program outside the process established by FISA for more than five years,” Leahy said.
Interest in the legal justification of the program soared last month after former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified about a March 2004 hospital-room meeting where then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales tried to pressure a critically ill John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, to set aside concerns and sign a presidential order reauthorizing the program.
With top Justice Department officials threatening to resign, Bush quietly quelled the uprising by directing the department to take steps to bring the program in line with the law, Comey said.
Leahy noted that when Gonzales, now attorney general, appeared before the panel on February 6, he was asked if senior department officials had voiced reservations about the program.
“I do not believe that these DoJ (department) officials … had concerns about this program,” Leahy quoted Gonzales as saying. Leahy added, “The committee and the American people deserve better.”
During the Clinton Administration the Republican controlled congress took their oversight responsibilities seriously, but as soon as a Republican became President oversight went out the window. Now the cons are whining that the Democratic controlled congress is just being political with their investigations into what this administration has been doing for the last six years.
Funny but I never thought illegal wire taps, illegally acquiring people’s phone, bank and email records, outing an undercover CIA employee, and using the Justice Dept. for political reasons was okay.
ksfarmgrrl, Republican, littlejohn, SolDevVB, political mama, and others:
Thank you for your kind words in our time of sorrow. My mother-in-law suffered from Alzheimer’s disease for some time, and hasn’t recognized most relatives for months. Recently she became violent, which restricted places that would care for her. While her passing was tragic for us, she can now rest in peace.
Thanks again for your kind words.
Pax
Sunshine, although essential for health and well being, is certainly a hazard for the skin. The sun continually produces UV radiation: UV-A and UV-B rays reach the earth and are a major cause of skin damage like skin aging, sun-burn, immune suppression, and even skin cancer. If your skin cannot cope with sunlight then you may be at risk of sun damage, premature ageing and skin cancers if you do not take care.We offer you our products on care of a skin.At us huge assortment of the various goods.Our links:[url=http://skin-care-onlin.org/brazilia-skin-care/index.htmlbrazilia skin care[/url]