Your news & views …
Back to Main
June 6, 2006
OT 06-49
Comments
One police informant tells a stupid story of a chemical plot and the British police storms a house, with 250 officers no less, and shots a man.
Turns out Intelligence behind raid was wrong, officials say.
Nothing there, zero, nada.
Now what about that Canadian raid, which seems to be equally fishy with the police(!) delivering 3 tons of fertilizers to a group that isn´t a group?
I’m a bit late to the party, so I’m not sure where to post this – but since this is the new one I’ll put it here.
I looked over that hideous weekend OT, w/its links to those 2 Gabfests being planned – “yrlykos” & whatever the hell it was – and all I saw were a lot of “How to Get Pregnant Via Masturbation” Seminars…
methinks we’s in trouble ’round here…
Posted by: jj | Jun 6 2006 5:27 utc | 2
“How to Get Pregnant Via Masturbation” Seminars…
there’s hope for us all jj.
Posted by: annie | Jun 6 2006 5:44 utc | 3
Canadian TV news interviewed the local politico who quotes the “ringleader” as saying that Canadian soldiers were raping Afghanistan’s women. “Stop right there, I said.”
Seemed pretty legit to me, so the man is quoted as incendiary. They also showed photos of bags of fertilizer and what looked like a computer motherboard with a red cell phone taped onto it, calling it a cell phone detonator.
I wonder what they were planning to blow up?
The story of the police delivering the fertilizer does seem fishy but according to mainstream news I’ve read it is characterized as a sting, which implies undercover agents, perhaps agents provocateurs.
It is good political news for the Conservative minority government and the police and military types. Harper phoned Bush today (of course) and their conversational talking points were read out on the news.
Hay was made of the fact that this might give Canada more credibility in the US, but the correspondent told the anchorman that Canada is still held in low regard. No context, I wonder who he means, the US admin I guess.
Again, it seems credible but the timing of the arrests is everything. Apparently they were under surveillance for a year or years. So this noisy guy is out of our hair, along with those troublemakers in the otherwise normal mosque. And a huge news story breaks at this particular time. “Enough explosives to do Oklahoma City two times” or whatever. It’s actually bags of fertilizer …
Someone quoted Yogi Berra recently. When asked what time it is he answered, “Ya mean now?”
Posted by: jonku | Jun 6 2006 6:32 utc | 4
A rediculea OpEd in WaPo: A Legal Case Against Iran
Starting from the false claim that Ahmadinejad called to “wipe Israel off the map, the authors make some glasshouse jiujitsu with international law:
Ahmadinejad’s words clearly violate Article 2.4 of the U.N. Charter. This provision, to which Iran has agreed, requires all U.N. member states to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
…
Ahmadinejad’s rant features a direct and unequivocal threat, and it gives Israel a valid casus belli — under both Article 51 (self-defense) of the U.N. Charter and customary international law — to use preemptive force as a means of ensuring that Iran cannot make good on its stated intentions.
Indeed, the International Court of Justice, in a 1996 opinion analyzing the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, found that use-of-force threats that violated Article 2.4 and were not otherwise justified under Article 51 also posed a threat to international peace and security, thereby further infringing the U.N. Charter.
Compare that to “axis of evil”, “regime change”, “no option off the table” and of course the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Lunatics!
I found it interesting, but not surprising, when JJ mentioned it on the other thread,that the guy running against Loserman for the Senate seat in CT, is the grandson of Morgan senior partner Thomas Lamont.
The US Senate, after all, has been a “Millionaires’ Club” since the Gilded Age. The Wiki cite is an interesting little read.
Posted by: Groucho | Jun 6 2006 13:24 utc | 7
Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying “yes” begins things. Saying “yes” is how things grow. Saying “yes” leads to knowledge.
from the Stephen Colbert, Knox College commencement address, 6/3/2006
Yes, I said yes, I will. Yes.
Posted by: Molly Bloom | Jun 6 2006 14:09 utc | 8
groucho, fwiw, this was ned lamont’s response to a question from a commenter on a kos thread he did a week or so ago. it may be just politics talking, but my hope is that we will get a chance to find out. replacing lieberman in the senate will be an important step forward for this country. i’m ready to take a chance and support ned lamont in this effort. anyway, here’s the question:
Question: What’s the toughest question you are getting from “your average voter” out there?
Outside of what you would call the activist community or the netroots, what has been the reaction from people of CT about your campaign?
by Buffalo Girl on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:56:54 PM EDT
Ned’s Response: tough question
Hello blogosphere:
One tough question which reflects a bit of cynicism about the political process: Ned, you sound good now but won’t Washington corrupt you and you end up like the inside the beltway gang?
My answer: I am not taking any lobbyist money, I am clearly not obligated to the political brass; I am only obligated to the thousands of grassroots people who have supported my campaign, and my outspoken kids who keep me honest.
Posted by: conchita | Jun 6 2006 14:28 utc | 9
As I posted on the weekend thread, Tommy Lamont–Ned’s grandfather–was not exactly a blackhearted capitalist bastard.
I wouldn’t really care if it was Richard Whtney who thrashed Loserman’s butt.
In the Whitney case, however, I’d want a weekly accounting of funds.
Posted by: Groucho | Jun 6 2006 14:56 utc | 11
groucho, from your wiki link –
While Richard Whitney was assumed to be a brilliant financier, he in fact had personally been involved with speculative investments in a variety of businesses and had sustained considerable losses. To stay afloat, he began borrowing heavily from his brother George as well as other wealthy friends. After obtaining loans from as many people as he could, Richard Whitney turned to embezzlement to cover his mounting business losses and to maintain his extravagant lifestyle. He stole funds from the New York Stock Exchange Gratuity Fund as well as from the New York Yacht Club where he served as the Treasurer. In addition, he stole $800,000 worth of bonds from his father-in-law’s estate.
Sounds like Richard Whitney would fit right in!
Posted by: conchita | Jun 6 2006 15:23 utc | 12
democracynow’s show today: Antiwar Candidates Challenge Incumbent Democrats in House and Senate Races
Across the country, a handful of challengers are taking some of the leading Democratic figures to task for voting to send US troops to Iraq and refusing now to bring them home. On this issue and others like government wiretapping, these candidates say many elected Democrats have betrayed core party values and provided political cover for the Bush administration.
We hear from four of these candidates that are shaking up races across the country: Jonathan Tasini in New York, Marcy Winograd in California, Ned Lamont in Connecticut and John Bonifaz in Massachusetts.
Posted by: b real | Jun 6 2006 16:03 utc | 13
JIT production was a rave in some industries in the 1990s.
Another Terrorist Attack Coming Soon?
U.S. officials believe Canadian arrests over the weekend and three recent domestic incidents in the United States are evidence the U.S. will soon be hit again by a terrorist attack. Privately, they say, they’d be surprised if it didn’t come by the end of the year, reports CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart in a CBS News exclusiv
…
The next attack here, officials predict, will bear no resemblance to Sept. 11. The casualty toll will not be that high, the target probably not that big. We may not even recognize it for what it is at first, they say. But it’s coming — of that they seem certain.
50 Kidnapped in Challenge to Iraq Gov’t
On Monday, U.S.-led forces fired artillery at the train station in Anbar’s provincial capital of Ramadi, “targeting four military-aged males unloading a weapons cache.”
A hospital official, Dr. Omar al-Duleimi, said American forces killed five civilians and wounded 15. The U.S. military said the mission had “positive effects on the target,” but it denied that civilians were killed or injured in the city west of the capital.
dearest conchita
i’m afraid i’m with the rest of the gang – i don’t see any democrat that would know resistance or even opposition unless it hit them with the force of sonny liston
the ingratiating lieberman – what malcolm x called a ‘house nigger’ if i’ve ever seen one is so terrible to watch i think i’d prefer to wash my own entrails
Posted by: r’giap | Jun 6 2006 18:50 utc | 17
r’giap –
let’s hope ned lamont proves you wrong – and not just because i want to be right. same goes for winograd, bonifaz, and tasini. i watched bonifaz during the post election debacle in ohio and he is made of the right stuff. i hear that his campaign for secretary of state in massachusetts has brought similar surprises as ned’s in connecticut with regard to popular support.
i guess i just refuse to lose hope. and actually, i think ned might have done you proud last night as he spoke about guantanamo, abu grahib, and haditha. the indignation and despair felt real.
Posted by: conchita | Jun 6 2006 19:00 utc | 18
The State of Emergency as the Empire’s Mode of Governance
Jean-Claude Paye
translated by Patrice Riemens
The atrocities of September 11, 2001 caused an unprecedented acceleration in the transformation of the corpus of criminal and criminal procedure laws in Western countries. In the months following the outrage, and sometimes within days, governments have enacted measures curtailing public and private liberties. In our opinion, a real break is taking place, because it is the very existence of the rule of law as we know it which is at stake.
These laws fit very much within a tendency that privileges procedure above law and equity in the dispensation of justice. Here, we are particularly concerned about the precedence being taken by emergency procedures. This break is so profound as to cause an upheaval of the norm as it prevailed up to now, causing the exception to become the rule. We conclude that emergency procedures are in the process of replacing the constitution as the ruling paradigm of politics.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 6 2006 19:04 utc | 19
opps, meant to add the following in my last post:
Bar group will review Bush’s legal challenges
The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.
It is indicative of how outrageously lawless Bush & his bestiary of madmen are that even the conservative American Bar Association has decided to convene a committee to assess the President’s conduct.~
Brian Leiter
Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935
Finally,
Ameriraq – The New Colonial Frontier
The United States is now building a striking diplomatic complex on the bank of the Tigris River in Baghdad. It is more than a mere replacement for the traditionally modest US Embassy in that city. When finished, it will cost more than a billion dollars and consist of 104 acres of grounds, offices, living quarters, eating places, athletic clubs and community facilities. Reminiscent of 19th century “international settlements” such as in Shanghai, China, the new “Embassy” will be a completely self-contained enclave, the largest and most elaborate the United States will have anywhere in the world. (…)
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 6 2006 19:19 utc | 20
“the new “Embassy” will be a completely self-contained enclave, the largest and most elaborate the United States will have anywhere in the world. (…)”
Nah, The US is just going to withdraw from Iraq and leave the building there for the disadvantaged Iraqis.(snark)
Will this become the new head offices of the “American Enterprise Institute”? Taking the place of the WTC and the UN combined and administered by the PNAC for the New World Order?
How come we hear next to nothing about this thing or about the gigantic US “Anaconda” military base north of Bahgdad?
If there is good news to be reported out of Iraq you’d think this would be it and the MSM would be all over it.
Posted by: pb | Jun 6 2006 21:15 utc | 21
Over the past 25 years or so, the GOP has done a better job of winning elections. It’s comforting in a storybook morality kind of way to attribute this not to dumb luck or skill at electioneering but to some deep-seated moral flaw lurking inside the other party. Thus, it’s simply a priori impossible that the platform Democrats have been espousing is the correct one since, after all, they didn’t win the election. If the correct platform actually is the one Democrats have been espousing, this simply needs to be ignored and instead we’ll all agree to pretend that deficit reduction, expanded access to health care, and enhanced emphasis on environmental issues is some out-of-left-field notion rejected by both parties.
his indignation in this piece seems to me preposterous, feigning as it does defense for some obvious heroic democratic party “platform.” show me a politician like the ones marked in the article breal links to above, and maybe we’ll have something in the way of an election that actually matters.
if the republicans don’t just steal the whole thing again, that is.
here’s the equally inane unity08 website.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 6 2006 22:24 utc | 22
People can attach whatever label they like to the truth however calling information cynical or sceptical doesn’t change the fact that it is correct.
It seems to me that Ned Lamont is engaging in that time-honoured political opening move called ‘positioning’.
He doesn’t want to be some senator from anywhere he wants to be the big cheese Prez.
If he is doing this and has invested a chunk of his trust fund on this election so as not to have any ties to corporations this time it won’t mean that is always going to be the case.
The result he will be looking for here will be ‘profile’. In fact getting a profile by ‘losing’ could be more effective than a ‘winning’ profile.
To achieve this ‘profile’ he will have hired a mob of consultants that will have done all the research necessary to discover the issues which really turn dem activists off.
And they’ve found some doozies in Joe Lieberman and campaign funding. Not to mention ‘the war’ (Note that. These dems call the illegal invasion and occupation a war, as if it were between two adult consenting nations) in Iraq and all the other ‘hot button’ issues that Lamont is being so garrulous about.
The dem establishment won’t hit him real hard because they can see the writing on the wall and know that they have to ‘position’ themselves for the longer term too. Hell they did the same when they were ‘kids’. (Cue hoary old story of ‘back in the day’.)
Here’s the thing. Most of what Lamont is advocating he will stick with to the letter. Some he won’t be able to because no ‘viable alternative’ has been found. Still people will forgive him that at first because he is staunch on the other stuff.
But by the time he obtains ‘real’ power most of these ‘hot button’ issues will have been superceded by events on the ground.
They will be irrelevant. There will be newer issues where Joe Public within and without the US is being seriously fucked over and Ned Lamont will be “clintoning’ his way through them.
Meanwhile in the back rooms of the dems another smart and goodlooking trust funder will be getting the results of his focus groups.
That is the way that the dems have worked since I have been studying US politics, except it didn’t always have to be a trustfunder.
Whatever cliche we put on the ability of information to flow every which way in the 21st century has seriously impacted the ‘old’ model.
The traceability of people’s lives means it is very difficult for a non-trustfunder to come up ‘clean’ when his /her whole previous existence is put under the microscope. The clint couldn’t win a meat tray raffle in the current climate. The fact that he was a bastard would have knocked him out, when really that was one of the few things he had going for himself.
But the real problem with the old model goes much deeper than the handsomely wrinkled face which is put on it.
The real problem is this. When it was possible to keep the voters in the US happy without having to so cruelly and publicly fuck over people outside the US, this hypocrisy worked.
Now that the brutal rape and theft of ‘foreigners’ has become so evident, partly because it has moved well out of the Latin American hemisphere, where it was easier to control information flows and where other nations were rudely shoved aside, and partly because it has been performed so ineptly, it is impossible to either keep these crimes off the minds of the US citizenry or prevent the blowback from outsider’s outrage.
Blind Freddy can see that the Iraqis aren’t the happy kow-towing ay-rabs the US public was promised they would be. In previous conflicts the circumstances generally prevented this obvious ‘dissonance’. The thing was over so fast, or it was so far away, but mainly they victims lacked the resources to get their side out. Now everyone with a cellphone can fire off a shot of an atrocity and get it out on the net and into the 6 o’clock news.
Hence the current wasteful, clumsy and ineffective supression strategies.
This change requires more than a new face on an old scam. It requires a whole new paradigm. One which won’t be so dependent on large corporation’s immediate economic success as a yardstick of a leader’s success.
I just don’t see how the heck that shift can occur when all the decision-makers, Lamont included are so are so involved with corporations. (I betcha ultimately all the Lamont family funds end up in some corporation’s stock)
There will never be any meaningful political change as long as all decision makers would be required to bite the hand that feeds them.
Sure those people who expect otherwise aren’t ‘cynical’, but they are naive.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 6 2006 22:33 utc | 23
the war, the war. imperialism. global capitalism. anti-immigrant racism.these cretins like yglesias who have managed to highjack “progressivism”–no, that’s not quite right–these people who have inherited a “progressive poitics” constructed for them by republicans, reflexively demand a progressive politics emptied of anything to really fight for; whose heroes are clinton and blair, the staus quo of catastrophe distracted by nice smiles and the ambition for “diversity,” safe sex, biofuels, organic foods, 99 cent mp3s, and the acceptable inevitability of the slaughter of brown people unfortunate to possess what we think we need.
these people are far more dispicable and dangerous than what they offer as the epitomies of their political “opposition.”
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 6 2006 22:44 utc | 24
radio ad, just now, for limbaugh: “I am not just a host….I AM A LEADER” (with Judas Preist “You’ve got Another thing coming” in the background).
like the black man who votes for george wallace: “hey at least I know what he believes.”
the democrats are going to get their asses handed to them.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 6 2006 22:52 utc | 26
@Anon@633pm.
I agree with much of what you say.
Radix malorem est cupidas, as the scholars say.
I think it is possible for people who think like us to take over the Democratic party
incrementally and to gradually eliminate the power of money, lobbyists, etc, in the political process.
Candidates like Lamont are a good place to start IMO.
I think it is a better strategic approach to try to take over the Dem party over time than to try to build a third party or coalition of third parties without.
The first approach, optimistically, might take 12 years; the second probably twice as long, with less likelihood of success.
A complex and speculative subject.
I will also say that I was much impressed with Perot’s effort in ’92. Well financed third parties moving fast and taking it all is not out of the question.
Posted by: Groucho | Jun 6 2006 23:15 utc | 27
there’s an aphorism in adorno’s writing that what characterizes politics in capitalist “democracies” is the willful attyempt to forget what kind of world the party would like to change, because the certainty of such politics would entrap the party as a means, not merely an end in itself–harbinger of orwell’s inner party logic. at the very least, the republicans are willing to defend an idea or two.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 6 2006 23:19 utc | 28
The Purpose Driven Life… Takers
“You are on a mission – both a religious mission and a military mission — to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state – especially moderate, mainstream Christians.” Your mission is “to conduct physical and spiritual warfare”; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old. You are playing a real-time strategy video game whose creators are linked to the empire of mega-church pastor Rick Warren, best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life.
Yes, that Rick Warren.
Also see, b’s excellent link: Evangelicals Are a Growing Force in the Military Chaplain Corps
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 6 2006 23:23 utc | 29
“more health care, reduced deficits”
platform? rather, the bullet you put into the gun to blow your brains out.
yglesias is a mole.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 6 2006 23:55 utc | 30
Hello,
This is my first time posting here, though I have been reading since Helpful Spook suggested this place some time ago. I admire the posters here and I’m very concerned about comments regarding Ned Lamont. Do you feel it would be foolish to work on his campaign? Would I be fostering the very thing I wish to ameliorate? Any thoughts would be deeply appreciated.
Posted by: Amurra | Jun 7 2006 0:01 utc | 31
anon at 6:33, i too agree with much of what you say. however, although i have had prez in the back of my mind while reading about lamont for the last few months (as he came in on a white horse after the alito debacle), seeing him in person did not make me think presidential. he is not bad looking, but he is not tall and there doesn’t seem to be even a hint of imperiousness in him. while it is true that his campaign and public personna are young, it seemed to me that he is by nature highly accessible. when leaving the gathering he happened to look over at the little group i was talking with and stopped to say goodbye and thank you. i took the opportunity to tell him how great it was to hear him speak and when i looked him in the eye and said, “you’re going to win” he said “i like this girl,” stepped forward, hugged me and brushed his cheek against mine. it was completely unnecessary and felt totally natural. it is hard for me to imagine a president doing this. i know clinton could pour on the charm, but this did not have the same quality. in a way it was almost a humble way of saying thank you. i’m sure some will be able to say that this is the mark of a manipulator, but i honestly don’t think it was the case.
so, anon, if we are fortunate enough that he or someone like him is able to make a go at running for president and actually wins, it will be interesting to see how s/he deals with the change in information flow. at the foundation of lamont’s platform is his concern about how what the us has done in iraq and in guantamo, abu grahib and beyond has compromised the country’s moral certitude. the understatement of the year yes, but if he does end up in the oval office, it will be interesting to see how long this concern stays with him. there seems to be an interest in transparency in his campaign now. when i began talking with the fellow next to me after ned’s speech last night the first thing i asked was if he knew if this speech was tailored for a new york audience. he told me that the staff videotapes each speech and streams it on the site and that he thought this was pretty much what ned was delivering across connecticut. if this is resonating in small towns across connecticut then it says a great deal about the changing attitudes of at least the coastal populace. he may, as you say, be positioning himself, or he may just be saying the right things at the right time. if his consitutents begin to hold him as accountable as he claims to want to hold this administration it is my hope (naive or not) that he remains as committed and as transparent.
on another note, i learned some disappointing things about tassini today which make him a much less attractive candidate. it seems that he has a history of vile opportunism (to quote the storyteller) and while running for reelection of the national writers union, he sold the membership a fraudulent health insurance plan that put people’s lives at risk. hmmm, be good to get a little more perspective on this as he looked like an attractive alternative to hilary in new york, but it was disappointing to learn. i still have high hopes for bonifaz and winograd.
Posted by: conchita | Jun 7 2006 0:32 utc | 32
one more thing. the one thing that i didn’t like about ned lamont’s presentation last night was that he very specifically classifies himself as a democrat. it is likely that this is to set up the contrast with joementum if/when he decides to run as an independent, or it may be because as a newcomer he thinks this is a safer entry into the fracas. or he may actually be a diehard dem. if he is the real deal he is presenting, and he does win, perhaps he will become disenchanted with the establishment and move to change it. i would love to see him run as an independent and if this scenario actually happens it will be interesting to see, as anon discusses, how he deals with his investments. i read earlier today that when he disclosed his personal net worth it turned out that he and his wife owned $15k+ of halliburton stock. his campaign manager claimed that their investments are managed by fund managers. i have already emailed to find out if he still owns the stock and will let the community know the response when i receive it. if he does, then i think anon will have the seeds of answer of sorts to his post.
Posted by: conchita | Jun 7 2006 0:42 utc | 34
Back to the world in which most of humanity resides. A world where turning off the TV/gameboy/dvd doesn’t stop the killing.
remember Somali? You know. Black-Hawk down. What a cast. I’ve always liked that Sam Shepard. he’s a good democrat you . I can remember when Sam and Jessica were at the. . .”SHADDUP!. . . We need to talk about reality not some glossy blood in yer face but merika is good subtext.” Oh. . OK go ahead then grumpy features.
Right well Somalia is still in the same bind it has been since forever. it’s borders don’t reflect it’s demography, this is compounded (as per usual) by that human desire to live. Now to do that humans need to eat, which is no easy task in an agrarian nation where however efficient the farming is trade barriers and tariffs prevent Somalia’s produce from being saleable commodities.
So the clans are blueing. Killing each other to try and establish ascendency in a confined space where despite the best efforts of controls such as the HIV virus and guns, the population just keeps increasing.
Smart survivalists have been attracting people to ‘their side’ in the usual manner. That is spouting some sort of redemption ideology. Comminism is a hard sell since there are few places a dedicated mainchancer can point to and say “see we’ll be just like blah-blah”.
That leaves the cause de jour (No not cause celebre), Islamism; or, as certain ‘merikan god-botherers, neo-cons, vote-seekers and other scare-mongerers like to put it ‘Jihadists’.
The thing that an objective outsider can’t fail to notice is that the cause is largely irrelevant to the leadership and whilst it may generate votes domestically within the US to side with foreigners that ‘seem nice’, picking a side based on the ’cause’ a group is alleged to be fighting for, rather than the character of it’s leadership, is pretty damn stupid.
That’s even if picking a side in itself is wise.
Anyway as this Reuters story spells out, the US has been funding and advising the Somali warlords who say they don’t want an Islamic state.
US funding Somali warlords -intelligence experts
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States has been funnelling more than $100,000 a month to warlords battling Islamist militia in Somalia, according to a Somalia expert who has conferred with the groups in the country.
The U.S. operation, which former intelligence officials say is aimed at preventing emergence of rulers who could provide al Qaeda with a safe haven akin to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, appeared to be seriously set back on Monday when an Islamic coalition claimed control of Mogadishu.
U.S. government officials refused to discuss any possible secret U.S. involvement in the strategically placed Horn of Africa state, which has been wrecked by years of fighting.
But former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said an operation to support the warlords’ alliance appeared to involve both the CIA and U.S. military.
John Prendergast, who monitors Somalia for the think-tank International Crisis Group, said he learnt during meetings with alliance members in Somalia that the CIA was financing the warlords with cash payments.
Prendergast estimated that CIA-operated flights into Somalia have been bringing in $100,000 to $150,000 per month for the warlords. The flights remain in Somalia for the day, he said, so that U.S. agents can confer with their allies.
The Bush administration has maintained a silence over allegations in recent months of a U.S. proxy war against Islamist radicalism in the country.
Pentagon spokesman Navy Lt. Commander Joe Carpenter reiterated the administration’s position that the United States stands ready to “disrupt the efforts of terrorists wherever they may be active.”
Without going through all the ins and outs of the ‘war on terra’, it just doesn’t seem that knee-jerk responses to complex issues can ever really be an acceptable tactic for statesmanship from highly paid professionals.
it’s one thing for joe Lunchbox to demand to see rag heads rolling and something completely else for diplomats to blindly engage that blood lust.
This article from the Independent illustrates why.
Islamic militia take control of Mogadishu as fighting spreads
Islamist militias fighting American-backed warlords in Somalia were in control of the capital Mogadishu last night, as fighting started to spread to other parts of the country.
The development came after three months of fierce clashes in which hundreds have been killed and injured and thousands more forced to flee their homes.
Last night the warlords’ militias had retreated from Mogadishu with Islamist forces in hot pursuit. The UN began pulling staff out of neighbouring areas in anticipation of the growing conflict. The Islamists’ victory is an embarrassing setback for the US, which had been supporting the self-styled Alliance for Restoration of Police and Counter Terrorism.
Thirteen years after America’s humiliating withdrawal from Somalia, the subject of the film Black Hawk Down, the US had been funding its former enemies under the rules of the post-9/11 global “war on terror”. The policy had led to dissent within the US administration, and the comprehensive defeat of the warlords showed, said critics, that it was fundamentally flawed.
The gains made by Islamists, who want sharia law to be established throughout Somalia, will also have wider ramifications to the region. The US has claimed that Somalia has become al-Qa’ida’s headquarters for the Horn of Africa, where attacks were planned on Western targets in neighbouring countries.
Some of the warlord forces were yesterday crossing the border into Kenya, which has its own problems with Muslim fundamentalism, leading to fears that the Somalian conflict may destabilise neighbouring countries.
The Islamist militias were consolidating their positions just outside the capital. They took over the town of Balad, 30 miles away, a strategic junction which controls the route to Jowhar, where the bulk of the warlord troops had fled.
Some warlords claimed that the forces were regrouping to launch a counter-attack and retake the capital. However, Commander Ali Nur, who has been acting as their spokesman simply said: “We have no immediate plans now. Most of our leaders appear to have fled from Mogadishu to Jowhar.” The town was among those from where the UN pulled out its staff last night.
Just putting aside the morality of funding any group prepared to control, steal the property of, murder and oppress a population for a moment and looking at the long-term practicality of such tactics, really makes one question the capability of the decision makers who decided upon them.
Most people just want to get on with theirs and their families existence. This means that deep down the average Joe, whether he/she lives in Mogadishu or Montana deeply resents anyone supplying the means to start or continue war in their neigborhood.
By funding and supplying munitions to warlords the US isn’t only greatly escalating the conflict, it is really pissing off the population and if the purpose of the whole exercise is to reduce the number of people in the world who wish harm upon the US, then surely it is counter productive.
If Europe and the US are really determined to make their populations pay far more for their food than they should, and still promote the ‘globalism’ philosophy, surely they must realise the need to assist the nations whose only potential income source is inexpensive foodstuffs.
That means assisting the un industrialised nations into value adding their primary produce so it becomes acceptable to the over-developed worlds markets . . . and helping them industrialise to the point where they have income streams which aren’t based on the agriculture that Europe and the US want to make into ‘living museums’ in their own countries.
Once Northern Hemisphere urban dwellers discover just how polluting intense and concentrated contemporary agricultural techniques are, they will arrive at the conclusion that spreading food production and food sources out to include the whole world is more likely to provide that sustainability which many defenders of domestic agriculture claim to be aiming for. Then they will find that the best way to generate a good quality reliable food supply is to let other nations access their food markets, and that will ensure better stability and security in most impoverished nations of the world than gun running could ever achieve.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 7 2006 1:11 utc | 35
cochita
when i am able to regard cspan on the net & see what passes for parliamentry politics – i just see the face of the good austrian soldier & diplomat & sometime assassin, kurt waldheim – who as his friend andreotti once sd – power exhausts only those who do not have it
as the old anarchist used to say guy fawkes was the only person who entered parliament with good intentions
or the crueller australian epithet – don’t vote it only encourages them
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 7 2006 1:19 utc | 36
Greetings N/A:
Nice to see you back you old ruffian.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 7 2006 2:02 utc | 37
Makushi.
‘n/a’ I’m not ready to believe you are who you say, answer this question and I will believe you.
What did you always greet me with?
If you can’t answer that, I will ignore you.
Posted by: Amurra | Jun 7 2006 2:43 utc | 38
i think i know what i always greeted you with
but i am not n/a
out for the night, this should get very interesting
Posted by: annie | Jun 7 2006 3:19 utc | 39
I’m on board w/Bonifaz (sp?). Will respond to the other stuff on Lamont another time. (Gotta get up before the sun to watch sports beamed live from Europe!! Screw live broadcasts!)
but, glad I’m not the only one missing DeA-. Awhile ago I went poking about under rocks & found her posting regularly at another site. Here’s her latest post there.
Posted by: jj | Jun 7 2006 3:27 utc | 40
Annie,
I have never posted here before, I suspect you are confusing me with someone else. Perhaps n/a is someone who posts under the same name as a friend and I have caused confusion. If so, I sincerely apologise.
Posted by: Amurra | Jun 7 2006 3:32 utc | 41
Welcome, Amurra. Keep checking back. I’ll do a post w/in next few days on this. The short answer is yes, you would be working against yr. own self-interest. Yr. time would be better spent reading up to understand why this is so. More later.
(P.S. This obtains if you think that govt. should represent yr. interests & promote the greatest good for the greatest number.)
For starters, you might start reading the excellent discussion of the economic policies they advocate. Here is the best place to do it. Paul Craig Roberts is a very conservative economist. He was Asst. Treasury Sec. for Reagan, then Assoc. Ed. of WSH Editorial Page, so these are no liberal screeds – nor are they screeds. He is simply someone who is Very Knowledgeable about economics, and actually cares about America. Horrifyingly I can’t think of anyone affiliated w/Dem. Party who fits that description.
Posted by: jj | Jun 7 2006 3:42 utc | 42
this response from lamont didn’t win him any respect from these quarters
AMY GOODMAN: Do you want to see President Bush impeached?
NED LAMONT: You know, I don’t. I can’t bear the thought of a President Dick Cheney.
a real fighter would have said impeach the whole lot! i’d think twice about giving this multimillionaire too much of your own money.
reform of our political offices seems, to me, entirely underreaching as a solution to the many crises we now face & which appear to be getting incrementally worse unless stark new choices are made. though i will agree that using our current approach to politics limits the effectiveness of better alternatives, it is only b/c the very thing that needs to change is our approach to politics. we have a choice that essentially gravitates toward two opposite poles – a top-down society or a bottom-up society. sticking to the former model, it really doesn’t matter who is put into office. the system is rigged to benefit those who are ceded (or grab) power. dom-i-nation. dummy-nation. eighty percent is automatically superfluous other than that they can be repeatedly exploited.
these should be historic times! these could be historic times! the constitution was due for some major improvements anyway. and maybe some of these borders need to be obliterated. maybe the unted states is too big & too diverse to be one sustainably, operating entity. i don’t know. neither do you. but there’s never been a more pressing time for some heavy responsibility for what the american experiment is & just where we are headed. the signs are ominous. at what point will we recognize systemic failure? c’mon – a society that is not people-centered is not a sustainable society. it’s a machine. we will not survive if we continue on the same path. it’s that simple.
the bush regime has to be held accountable, yes, but we need a counter-revolution, not business-as-usual w/ new business[wo]men.
Posted by: b real | Jun 7 2006 3:54 utc | 43
@JJ:
Poor Stan will have to be getting himself a dictionary, i guess.
Posted by: Flashharry | Jun 7 2006 3:55 utc | 44
what democratic politicians have spoken out against imperialist america? what democratic candidates have spoken out against the dominant mutation of capitalism? what politician has spoken of a sustainable, decentralized, living economy?
Posted by: b real | Jun 7 2006 4:14 utc | 45
jj,
I will keep checking back. I deeply appreciate your comments and the link you provided. I nearly made a grave mistake. Thank you.
Posted by: Amurra | Jun 7 2006 4:15 utc | 46
b real – all extremely valid points to which i will give much thought. i completely agree with your ire on the impeachment question.
the only politician who comes to mind who would be likely to speak of a sustainable, decentralied, living economy is al gore, but i can’t quote him on it. and i wonder if ron paul has spoken out agains imperialist america? they are as a whole a craven bunch.
what was your impression of john bonifaz?
Posted by: conchita | Jun 7 2006 4:25 utc | 47
Been nice to have seen you again Nemo.
You take care.
You and Amurra shouldn’t make any heavy bets on the basis of the expert political advice you’ve had here tonight.
That’s all I’ll say.
Posted by: Flashharry | Jun 7 2006 4:28 utc | 48
@FlashHarry – Glad to see ya around. I think they’re 2 Peas in a Pod!
Checky here – turns out that according to newly released documents West German Intel. told the CIA the location & alias of Adolf Eichmann in ’58, but both agencies too worried about protecting their own ties to Nazis to arrest him, or pass it along to Israel! Adolf E. <-> Osama…link
Posted by: jj | Jun 7 2006 4:28 utc | 49
Vanity Fair: The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed
The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful “black propaganda” campaign with links to the White House
Assif ya n/a. A case of mistaken identity. A long lost friend shares your pseudonym. maa3assalaama.
Posted by: Amurra | Jun 7 2006 4:53 utc | 51
There is only one genuine n/a upon this earth ya Amurra. Although seldom seen, when an n/a pounces you would know all about it. I believe this might be familiar to you?
fi aman Allah daeman
[too long URL deleted.
2:05 AM
b.]
Posted by: n/a | Jun 7 2006 5:55 utc | 52
Ufffff, wroong code, try []
[too long URL deleted.
2:07 AM
b.]
Posted by: n/a | Jun 7 2006 5:57 utc | 53
The Vanity Fair story is yet the best narrative of the Niger Uranium, Ledeen and SISMI involvement – recommended.
@ Flash Harry
salam
I gave up taking interest in the fortunes of any American political party a long time ago. They are all doing something in the same pot when it comes to us.
Take care
😉
Posted by: n/a | Jun 7 2006 6:01 utc | 56
Canada Saw Plot to Seize Officials
Prosecutors here assert that some of the men charged in a terror plot last week planned a series of violent attacks that included seizing Parliament and beheading Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other lawmakers if Canadian troops were not withdrawn from Afghanistan, a defense lawyer said in court Tuesday.
…
Mr. Batasar said the government papers laid out a plot to storm the Gothic Revival buildings of Parliament in Ottawa and take hostages. The hostages would be beheaded if the terrorists’ demands that Canadian troops to be pulled out of Afghanistan were not met.
Mr. Chand was said to have remarked that he would “personally like to behead Prime Minister Stephen Harper,” Mr. Batasar said. The document also said the men intended to attack power lines and news media offices, including the CBC building in Toronto.
This is getting redicules. No evidence was presented for any of these claims. Who is cooking this up?
Covert action in Iranian Azerbaijan?
Interesting blog entry on unrest in Iranian Azerbaijan. Via Regime Change Iran, which as I’ve noted before is mostly a warmongering neocon propaganda site, but since they do at the very least hold to the pretense that the US is interested in sponsoring “democracy” in Iran, it’s curious (to say the least) when stuff like this shows up there.
Video of massive Tabriz anti-regime demonstrations
I saw this video clip of the recent massive anti-regime demonstrations in Tabriz on google this morning, and Winston has been quick to cover it.
Just a few comments that i’d like to make on the unrest in Iranian Azerbaijan. First of all it really goes to show what a massive participation there was in Tabriz, however the person who uploaded that video clearly is a Pan-Turanian belonging to the “Grey Wolf” faction of this movement who is trying to depict this massive anti-IRI demonstration as a “anti-Iran” demonstration! These lowlives are doing their best to tear Iran into pieaces and i’ve seen some of their supporters amongst those in the crowds showing their infamous “Grey Wolf” sign (done in the shape of a bullshorn); a graphical picture can be seen HERE and HERE to help demonstrate (if you go and look at the pictures from the demo’s you will notice some people making these signs). You can research their movement further, and an excellent study to begin with and which is very comprehensive is the one written by Kaveh Farrokh on how Pan-Turanism is taking aim at Iranian Azerbaijan.
None the less such an anti-Iranian movement like theirs will not be able to hijack this truly IRANIAN freedom movement. I do believe that if Iranian Azeri’s were aware of this threat (Pan-Turanism) to their nation these Pan-Turanian infiltrators showing the “Grey Wolf” signs would have been dealt with severely. The Pan-Turanists are doing their best making this look like a movement in support of the seperation of Azerbaijan from the motherland Iran! The title they have put on for this clip on google is “Azeri’s protest Chauvinism” and with “chauvinism” they are referring to something they call “Persian Chauvinism”; little do they know that some of the leading figures of this barbaric regime hail from Iranian Azerbaijan! And by that I am not condemning any region or people since the SAVAGES that make up this regime come from all across Iran and yes even from the province of PARS where the “Persians” hail from. Azeri’s, Kurds, Balooch, Mazandarani etc all of them are Iranian peoples (note again in wikipedia that the Pan-Turanians are hard at work trying to seperate Iranian Azeri’s from their motherland; i’d refer you back to Dr Kaveh Farrokh article on the origin of Iranian Azeri’s). Iranian Azeri’s have strong loyalty to their motherland; peoples from all of Iran’s different provinces including Azerbaijan, Kordestan, Baloochestan, and Pars are all proud of their provinces and extraordinary men and women that have hailed from them – it is all of Iran’s provinces put together that make Iran the great and beautiful nation it is but which unfortunately has been hijacked by a bunch of Islamists who seek to destroy Iran and Iranian culture.
Please be aware of the propaganda and it sure as hell wouldn’t surprise me if the western press supports any effort towards the disintegration or “Balkanization” of Iran. In the end it will only remain that though a “futile effort” that will never bare fruit because Iranians will fight to their last blood defending their motherland. Iranian Azeri’s will be the first ones to confront any attempt to secede Iranian territory.
This is a topic that is dear to me as I have Azeri heritage myself in my family and a cause that all Iranians feel strongly about and which needs to be dead-clear for everyone.
More power to Iranian Azeri’s demanding freedom and for their rights to be recognized.
Yashasin Iran!
Yashasin Azarabadegan!
Be aware this very well could be the racheting up of massive propagenda.
Also see,TurcoPundit
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 7 2006 8:17 utc | 60
Britain is the fall guy for the US retreat from Afghanistan
A faintly plausible intervention in southern Afghanistan might have the west buying the entire poppy crop for processing through legal channels (as in Turkey and India), thus undercutting the Taliban and the drug mafia. It might involve bribing local councillors to toe Kabul’s line and joining local militias in hitting back at Taliban incursions. On a conservative estimate I am told this would need a “foreign legion” of 150,000 British troops in the desert. Isaf has just 6,000 troops, with the Dutch and Canadians politically averse to casualties. The mission is little short of suicidal.
On June 19, about 4,000 government workers will say goodbye to their families and take to the bunkers in an [mock?]”evacuation” that sources describe as the largest “continuity of government” exercise ever conducted.
The exercise is the latest manifestation of an obsession with government survival that has been a hallmark of the Bush administration since 9/11, a focus of enormous and often absurd time, money and effort that has come to echo the worst follies of the Cold War.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 7 2006 9:05 utc | 62
Uncle $ca’ms back to the bunker link goes on to a Bill Arkin piece in the WaPo about continiuity of government plans.
When you read that story and find out that agencies such as the patent and trademarks office and student aid now have ‘lines of succession’ so that in the event of a catastophic incident where swathes of the population have been destroyed these offices can still maintain the essential functions such as ensuring no-one is selling fake Nikes.
Life imitates art n all.
In 1969 Richard Lester (A Hard Day’s Night) and Spike Milligan made a movie called The Bed Sitting Room
‘Dick the prick’ Cheney should be made to watch it.
It is set after WWIII which lasted 2 minutes 32 seconds and features the 9 and a half people who survived. An english civil servant manages to work out who is the most closely related to the royal family. and one of them; an aging housefrau is crowned queen. The two policemen who survive spend most of their waking hours trying to get the others to “move along please” which is difficult as most of the others are on an underground train circling incessantly as they commute to non-existant jobs.
Natch Leopold wouldn’t crack a smile but at leat it would give him a ‘real world’ view of the ‘potential challenges’
Leopold, Rumsfield et al have defined themselves by their jobs, which mens that if the ‘jihadists’ ever do cover the world in suitcase dirty bombs, the BushCo cabinet will still be out there spieling, taxing, and spending
The film was made well before Monty Python, before the US ‘got’ english humor so it bombed at the box office and Lester didn’t work for 5 years.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 7 2006 11:20 utc | 63
European nations aided CIA
Maybe this European Report will help stop the madness.
n/a
I was thinking of something else but I like your answer better 😉 Good to see you!
Posted by: Amurra | Jun 7 2006 15:14 utc | 65
b, thanks for the excellent vanity fair article. sad state of affairs when we have to rely on vanity fair and rollingstone while the us press remains silent and complicit.
we’re looking at a vote in the house next week on net neutrality. i hope all the us mooners take a moment to call their reps to ask them to support a net neutrality ammendment to the COPE act – either the sensenbrenner-conyers or the markey.
Posted by: conchita | Jun 7 2006 16:08 utc | 66
conchita-
actually, Vanity Fair has consistently done more real investigative reports than the “papers of record” — for instance, Gore Vidal’s long ago questions about McVeigh’s “lone gunman” story in the msm.
same for Rolling Stone. And Mother Jones and The Progressive…
If you go back and read the papers of record, you’ll find that their reports of truth come long after these stories have been revealed in alternative outlets (yes, even Vanity Fair is “alternative” when it comes to news…funny, huh?
And Iran-Contra would have been left uncovered except for Lebanese journalists. The San Jose Mercury News was excoriated by Time, Newsweek, the NYTimes and the Wpost for the story of drug smuggling by the CIA, even tho the story was true…and remains part of the “untold story” in the msm to this day.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 7 2006 16:22 utc | 67
The United States today demanded UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan renounce a speech in which his No 2 official broke with tradition and accused the United States of undermining the United Nations.
US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton called the speech by Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown a “very, very grave mistake”.
“I spoke to the secretary-general this morning. I said: “I’ve known you since 1989 and I’m telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior UN official that I have seen in that entire time,” Bolton told reporters.
“To have the deputy secretary-general criticise the United States in such a manner can only do grave harm to the United Nations,” Bolton said.
In the speech, delivered yesterday, Malloch Brown said that the United States relies on the United Nations as a diplomatic tool but doesn’t defend it before critics at home, a policy he called unsustainable.
He lamented that that the good works of the UN are largely lost because “much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.”
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jun 7 2006 16:37 utc | 68
Posted by: moe99 | Jun 7 2006 16:50 utc | 70
Looks like we’re getting some traction on the Iraqi oil industry over at Cutlers blog. Just got up, so havent read/digested it yet — but its long.
Posted by: anna missed | Jun 7 2006 17:12 utc | 71
Senate won’t quiz telecoms about NSA spying
This is my socked face.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 7 2006 17:26 utc | 72
Senate won’t quiz telecoms about NSA spying
This is my shocked face.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 7 2006 17:27 utc | 73
Senate won’t quiz telecoms about NSA spying
This is my shocked face.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 7 2006 17:27 utc | 74
Nicholas von Hoffman has a great piece on immigration, and border, port, and transport security HERE
Posted by: Groucho | Jun 7 2006 17:42 utc | 77
maybe this link works better, moe?
nyat, nyat, nyat. *boink*
Posted by: larry ann curly | Jun 7 2006 18:29 utc | 78
anon @ 12:22 stopped relying on traditional us media a long, long time ago with the exception of knight ridder which is precisely why i urge all of us in the us to call their reps about net neutrality. without the internet we are even more fucked.
Posted by: conchita | Jun 7 2006 18:51 utc | 79
conchita – sorry, i don’t do impressions. 😉 honestly, this was the first i’d heard of bonifaz. east coast electoral politics generally happens outside of my radar, but i’ll agree w/ him about how critical it is to establish accountable elections & examine the last two presidential ones. less clear on what he means by “democracy” and upholding the democratic party’s “core values.” values are worthless if they’re just intangible ideas committed to a piece of paper or the reassuring rhetoric & promises that any political actor worth his/her salt thinks people want to hear. true values are measured in our behaviour and actions. so i am not sure what he means when refering to the democratic party’s core values. we’ve watched them screw us royally for all of these years now. it’s likely that they’re unable to change their behaviour collectively, much less at the character level.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 7 2006 18:51 utc | 80
b real, it may be a function of growing up in this milieu but i cannot help but hold onto a bit more hope than you with your more objective perspective. thanks for your remarks, they made me stop a moment. until i hear back from ned lamont’s campaign about his halliburton holdings and his position about socially responsible investing, i am putting my earlier enthusiasm slightly on hold. however, i will support his senate campaign because even if he is beholden to corporations he is a dramatic improvement over joementum. i don’t know if you saw the letter sent by the dlc trashing lamont, but it is a prime example of what you are talking about.
Posted by: conchita | Jun 7 2006 19:10 utc | 82
what passes as “progressive” politics in this country, right now? why, just ask a “progressive” hierophant like matt stoller:
But I’m intrigued by Bilbray’s platform, which differed starkly from Busby’s technocratic ‘moderation’. It’s really quite stunning.
Brian was also a key player in the drafting and passage of some of the major accomplishments of the 104th Congress: the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Immigration Reform bill, and the Welfare Reform measure.
it seems obvious to me stoller and others mean to say “pusillanimous,” not “progressive,” to describe the politics of liberal utopia.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 7 2006 20:08 utc | 83
The newcomers were non-threatening, suitably humble and devoid of the truculent squawkishness of the immigrant-rights professionals now crowding our television screens.
yeah. you just can’t get away from these immigration-rights activists.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 7 2006 20:17 utc | 84
slothrop, check this guy out in texas of all places – David Van Os. you might be surprised by what the next attorney general of texas has in mind.
Posted by: conchita | Jun 7 2006 21:07 utc | 86
about groucho’s hoffman piece: it’s not a zero-sum game that “mexicans won’t learn english, and we won’t end our desire for cheap labor.” these immigrants are the only future that matters. in the end, whitey will speak spanish, or he won’t get a job from the patron.
whether whitey thinks like a worker, and not a whitey, will determine whether anyone in this country has any future at all. hoffman can fantasize all he wants about vestigial examples of good immigrants making good on the american dream. but the tale is the same old racist yarn: becoming more like whitey is all that matters. whatever examples one might find in the past of heroic immigration will find that success was owed to unionized labor, and not whether jaime speaks ingles. the fact mexicans don’t speak english is a symptom, not a cause, of the demise of the working american family.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 7 2006 21:42 utc | 87
conchita
thanks for that link to “democracy for america.”
I paid a visit to dfa and found yet another empty vessel of “progessivism.” what is dfa “progressive” politics? why, it’s our old friend, again:
balanced budgets and universal health insurance.
by omitting any belief in the service of political expediencies, no one can ever say our “political progressives” risk an event of spiritual disillusion.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 7 2006 21:58 utc | 88
a marketing maxim: customers view products as different because of the way they are presented
Posted by: b real | Jun 7 2006 22:06 utc | 89
Canadian terrorist wanted to behead Harper
As my buddy cracked – he wouldn’t miss it
Posted by: gmac | Jun 7 2006 22:12 utc | 90
slothrop, very sorry. sent you the wrong link. david van os is much more interesting. this one works.
Posted by: conchita | Jun 7 2006 22:48 utc | 91
oh, I don’t know. brother os is probably better than judge roy bean. the good fight is local, for sure.
conchita, are there any socialists running in your neck of the woods? maybe go check em out.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 7 2006 23:11 utc | 92
Pennsylvania: Stanley Hetz for US Senate web
Gabe Ross for Congress (12th CD) contact
Jeff Brindle for State Assembly (26th Dist.) web
here you go
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 7 2006 23:15 utc | 93
Good find Conchita.
And I apologize a bit to the inhabitants of Kossackdom.
There are more than a few pale riders there, from viewing the Lamont and Van Os threads.
Posted by: Groucho | Jun 7 2006 23:21 utc | 94
Not planning on getting pregnant? The Center for Disease Control (CDC) doesn’t care. As far as they are concerned, if you are one of the 62 million women in the U.S. of childbearing age, you are pre-pregnant. A vessel. You are a future fetal incubator.
And, according to the CDC, the medical establishment, government, media and cultural crusaders should join in enforcing this state of pregnancy preparedness on you.
In April, the CDC issued a new report detailing measures to be taken to intervene in the life, health care, and behaviors of all women, “from menarche [first occurrence of menstruation] to menopause, who are capable of having children, even if they do not intend to conceive.”
Posted by: gmac | Jun 7 2006 23:28 utc | 95
slothrop, you must be joking. i live in nyc. i think the only place where i have seen more socialist newspapers, bookstores, etc. is berkeley. you can’t through union square without stepping on one. to be honest, i am a socialist at heart, but i don’t see the american populace going that way in sufficient numbers to make a difference in the state of affairs. it is one of the reasons i come here – to listen to you and r’giap – you keep me in line. thanx for the link. will take a longer look.
have been wondering where you can live without being a car for 13 years? looks like it must be phillie based on the politicos you just listed.
groucho, after awhile you get to recognize the posters of substance on the site. then many of them, like billmon, leave to do their own thing, but i have found that it is not a waste of my time to check in there. lately, a woman going by the handle exmearden has been posting diaries which rival billmon’s travelogues. she is not writing his incisive political commentary, but she writes beautifully and seemingly effortlessly. she just wrote a diary about death and another about abortion from a very unique and memorable perspective. if i was going to yearly kos she is the person i would be most interested in meeting.
Posted by: conchita | Jun 7 2006 23:40 utc | 96
dearest conchita
whatever the comrades can offer they do so with good hearts but when i look at your country’s corrupt political appareil i see only jackals & jackasses
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 7 2006 23:55 utc | 97