Rev Wright was Swiftboated by ABC and it has to STOP!

After his appearance on Bill Moyers Journal this week, which featured far more expansive clips of his controversial statements from the pulpit, as well as some fairly cogent explanations of those comments, it has become increasingly clear that Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a Good Man with a impressive amount of wit, clarity and intelligence. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who volunteered for both the Marine Corp and the Navy during the height of Vietnam and was even cardiologist to President Johnson does not "Hate America".

Why is it so easy to question the patriotism and judgement of a Vietnam Vet and Marine like Jeremiah Wright, but not a Vet like John McCain or David Patreaus? That would be just beyond the pale to even suggest, wouldn't it?

The fact is that Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been WRONGED by the media and Swiftboated by lazy hacks cowering within ABC News.

In a series of previous diaries I've pointed out that taking "in the heat of the moment" comments such as Wright's out of context, is a completely common occurance for the media.

It's Dumpster Diving!

We've seen it before, we'll see it again - but that doesn't make it right or excusable.

What most people - including everyone in the media - ignore is the fact that many of Wright's statements were 100% Correct (Correction: Updated Link), and even some of the wildest comments - such as the U.S. Government Lies about AIDS have a solid basis in fact particularly when you look at how doggedly slow the Reagan Administration was in responding to the issue while hundreds and thousands of gay people, and eventually black people suffered and died.

A lie of omission, is still a lie.

As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS. History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have and will die of AIDS.

By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing. That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers marched from the Castro to Moscone Center.

With each diagnosis, the pain and suffering spread across America. Everyone seemed to now know someone infected with AIDS. At a White House state dinner, first lady Nancy Reagan expressed concern for a guest showing signs of significant weight loss. On July 25, 1985, the American Hospital in Paris announced that Rock Hudson had AIDS.

It's true that Wright was wrong to say the U.S. Government "injected people" with AIDS, this was an obvious misstatement, but the truth is that what they actually did by simply standing by and doing nothing for YEARS because they thought it was just a "Gay Disease" was equally shameful, if not worse than anything Wright alleged.

Reagan was actively letting a genocide take place against Gay People. They had a deadly disease spreading and they had NO WORKABLE TREATMENT, yet they sat on their hands for years. There's no excuse for that. None.

But that wasn't the first time this had occured, there was also the Tuskeegee Experiment, where antibiotic drugs where deliberately withheld from Black men suffering from Syphlis for nearly 40 years, which is something Wright also talked about - so let us KNOW sit back and pretend that Americas hand's are perfectly clean when it comes to AIDS or supply medical treatment to black people. It simply isn't true.

But did ABC mention this? No.

(Update: It may be possible that Wright was alluding to the "Polio/Vaccine AID Virus link", but then that's what more CONTEXT would provide us, because I honestly don't know if this is what he meant or not. He only mentioned it in one sentence, in passing. The theory which was reported about ten years ago by New Yorker Magazine. (Not exactly a bastion of Black Militant Throught). There have also been stories about it in Rolling Stone. I've seem more recent reports that discount the theory claiming that the dates that the virus first appeared and the timing of the polio vaccine trials in Africa don't match up - but I'm not yet convinced either way on it. It might be completely wrong, it might not. There is a WIKI Page on it which discusses both the theory and the various arguements against it, and shows that it has been looked at seriously by real scientists! It's a still open question, and many people have tried to answer it.

Whether the theory has merit or not, the thing is when you take the reality of Tuskegee and Reagan's slow reaction into account, it's not really such a "tin-foil" theory at all compared to what we know happened in these similar instances.)

Did they mention that the person who said "America's Chicken are coming home to Roost" in response to 9/11 was Reagan's Ambassador to Iraq Edward Peck on Fox News, and that Wright was simply quoting him?

No.

Wright:I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox news. This is a white man and he was upsetting the Fox news commentators to no end. He pointed out. You see him John? A white man he pointed out -an Ambassador! He pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true. America's chickens are coming home to roost!

We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arawak, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism! We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism! We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard-working fathers. We bombed Gadafi's home and killed his child. "Blessed are they who bash your children's head against a rock!" We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy. Killed hundreds of hard-working people; mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima! We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye! Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians - not soldiers - people just trying to make it day by day.

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism. A White Ambassador said that y'all not a Black Militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism. An Ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and who's trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised--

Wright's ultimate point was that we should turn away from "an eye for an eye" type of response to 9/11, that we should be wary of letting our anger over 9/11 lead us astray and seek to "Bash the head of babies" as was written in Psalm 137.

He was in fact, predicting that we would overreact to 9/11. And we did, didn't we? We invaded a country that had nothing to do with that attack, rounded up innocent people in Abu Ghraib - abused and tortured them - have contributed to the killing of possibly as many as a HALF MILLION INNOCENT IRAQIS.

We did "bashed their babies heads on the ground", with cluster bombs and daisey cutters. With Shock and Awe!

Wright: And so, I had to show them using that Psalm 137, how the people who were carried away into slavery were very angry, very bitter, moved and in their anger from wanting revenge against the armies that had carried them away to slavery, to the babies. That Psalm ends up sayin' "Let's kill the baby-let's bash their heads against the stone." So, now you move from revolt and revulsion as to what has happened to you, to you want revenge. You move from anger with the military to taking it out on the innocents. You wanna kill babies. That's what's going on in Psalm 137. And that's exactly where we are. We want revenge. They wanted revenge. God doesn't wanna leave you there, however. God wants redemption. God wants wholeness. And that's the context, the biblical context I used to try to get people sitting again, in that sanctuary on that Sunday following 9/11, who wanted to know where is God in this? What is God saying? What is God saying? Because I want revenge.

Contrary to every single member of the punditocracy, Wright was stating here that we need to turn away from bitterness in the wake of tragedy and atrocity - and turn toward God.

When Wright said "God Damn America" he didn't say that that's how Black people should feel. He didn't say it was "White America" that should be damned. He was talking very specifically about the failure of the American (and other) Governments, and that they have betrayed and failed to follow the teachings of Jesus and God when they committed various atrocities - not just against Black People, but also the Native American Tribe, and the Japanese during WWII.

And not that we should be "Bitter" about it.

REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT: Where governments lie, God does not lie. Where governments change, God does not change. And I'm through now. But let me leave you with one more thing. Governments fail. The government in this text comprised of Caesar, Cornelius, Pontius Pilate - the Roman government failed. The British government used to rule from East to West. The British government had a Union Jack. She colonized Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Hong Kong. Her navies ruled the seven seas all the way down to the tip of Argentina in the Falklands, but the British government failed. The Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed. And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. Not God bless America; God damn America! That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating her citizen as less than human. God damn America as long as she keeps trying to act like she is God and she is supreme!

Why should God "Bless" America when America tries to Act as if it were God?

And what does "Damning" mean anyway?

Wright: They were saying that God was-- in fact, if you look at the damning, condemning, if you look at Deuteronomy, it talks about blessings and curses, how God doesn't bless everything. God does not bless gang-bangers. God does not bless dope dealers. God does not bless young thugs that hit old women upside the head and snatch their purse. God does not bless that. God does not bless the killing of babies. God does not bless the killing of enemies. And when you look at blessings and curses out of that Hebrew tradition from the book of Deuteronomy, that's what the prophets were saying, that God is not blessing this. God does not bless it- bless us. And when we're calling them, the prophets call them to repentance and to come back to God. If my people who are called by my name, God says to Solomon, will humble themselves and pray, seek my faith and turn from their wicked ways. God says that wicked ways, not Jeremiah Wright, then will I hear from heaven.

Listening to just a little bit more of these comments than we've been shown over he past month, they start to make far more sense.

But ABC heard and saw everything before they began to put out their story.

They had it all.

It was ABC News who bought copies of various sermons by Rev. Wright and then proceeded to cherry-pick the most inflamatory statements within them, without providing any type of context or perspective on what Wright was actually trying to say. They distorted what he meant.
Deliberately.

Since they had access to the tapes, and since they were the ones to do the initial editing they made a conscious decision to distort his statements and smear the man.

In their initial story they choose NOT to mention Tuskeegee. Those choose NOT to mention Ambassador Peck. They choose NOT to mention Psalm 137, or the fact that Wright was contrasting how Governments fail, but God does not.

In their second story, they did note that the Church and it's current pastor had objected to the story saying that it was "character assassination".

Sen. Barack Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, denounced the media coverage of its retired pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, saying his "character is being assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe."
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright has made a number of controversial statements.

"It is an indictment on Dr. Wright's ministerial legacy to present his global ministry within a 15- or 30- second sound bite," the church's current pastor, the Rev. Otis Moss III said. "This is an attack on the legacy of the African American Church which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world," he added.

But then, although they had the tapes, the didn't even bother to try and showcase a single example of what Rev Moss was describing and by that time the original clips were rocking around the internet to be clucked over by every news outlet in the country, who didn't have the full tapes or even Bother to try and find them before coming to the conclusion that Wright was a "wackadoddle" and an obvious detriment to the Obama campaign. Instead of examining the merit of Moss's claim they focused on Barack Obama's claims that he knew nothing about these comments, and frankly, based on the his responses since that time - He was obviously telling the truth, because if he'd actually been in the pews at the time, or had head the entire recorded sermon in context, he never would have made the claim that Wright was an example of a "Generational Gap" between older black people who experienced the civil rights movement first hand who can't seem to "look at the better aspects of America" and himself.

Wright knows that America is a great country, but he also knows that it won't remain great and won't get greater unless we continually challenge to do so.

If Barack had seen and heard Wright's comments in full context, something only members of TUCC and the ABC Investigative Team had done previously, he would have been able to full and full-throatedly defend both Wright and his comments the way that Father Michael Pfleger did to Fox News.

They continued this trend with their second story on Wright.

But whose got time for that right? Instead, ABC dug up some more dirt.

Other sermons reviewed by ABC News, from videotapes sold by the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, reflect Rev. Wright's repeated attacks on the U.S. government as a "racist and arrogant superpower" that does not value its black citizens.

In one sermon in October 2005, Rev. Wright addressed the racial elements at play in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

"The winds of Katrina blew the cover off America. The hurricane exposed the hypocrisy," Rev. Wright said, "protecting white folks' property took priority over saving black folks' lives." He continued, "This storm called Katrina says far more about a racist government than it does about the wrath of God."

In April 2003, Rev. Wright told his congregation that "the United States government has failed the vast majority of our citizens of African descent."

"For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you've got five million blacks who are out of work," he said. "For every one Colin Powell, a millionaire, you've got 10 million blacks who cannot read. For every one Condoskeeza [sic] Rice, you've got one million in prison. For every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat, at the Masters, with his cap-blazing hips, playing on a course that discriminates against women. For every one Tiger Woods, we got 10,000 black kids who will never see a golf course."

Here's the question - what part of what he's saying here isn't true?

Besides Brian Ross, the Byline on at least three of these stories was one REHAB EL-BURI. A brief cursory "cherry-picking" survey of El-Buri other stories seems to indicate that politics isn't even her normal beat. She normally covers stories related to Al-Qeada and Osama Bin Laden. Y'know - the Islamo-Fascist Beat.

# Taliban: Dutch Defense Chief's Son Killed Over Anti-Islam Film

... Rehab El-Buri ...
Apr. 21, 2008 | Rehab El-Buri

# Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11
... Brian Ross; Rehab El-Buri ...
Apr. 16, 2008 | Brian Ross; Rehab El-Buri

# Town Hall Meeting al Qaeda-Style
... Rehab El-Buri; Jason Ryan ...
Apr. 2, 2008 | Rehab El-Buri; Jason Ryan

# Al Qaeda to Answer Online Questions
... Rehab El-Buri ...
Apr. 2, 2008 | Rehab El-Buri

# Uproar Over Anti-Islam Film Falls Flat
... Rehab El-Buri ...
Mar. 28, 2008 | Rehab El-Buri

# The Blotter: A New Message From OBL Expected
... Rehab El-Buri Reports: ...
Mar. 19, 2008

# OBL: Revenge for Republishing Offensive Cartoons Will Be Severe
... Rehab El-Buri ...
Mar. 19, 2008 | Rehab El-Buri

I'm not going to presume that someone can't write a story outside their own personal perspective and experience, but why is an obvious "Muslim Reporter" who doesn't do political stories even covering what anyone says in a Black Christian Church?

I'm not one to draw broad conclusions from such a meager sampling of information - unlike Brian Ross and Rehab El-Buri - but could ABC have found someone who might have even less understanding of the History and Context of the Black Christian Church in America?

I'm just saying...

From reading some of El-buri work product, it appears that her insight into Islam seems to be begin and end with whatever the AP has for her next set of dictation and copy/paste practice.

But there was a political reporter, besides on-air host and "Investigative Unit Head" Brian Ross, involved in these stories, although they didn't recieve a Byline, by the name of Sunlen Miller

Some of Ms. Miller's recent stories:

* Political Radar: At Home in Midwest, Obama Explains Why He Refused Debate Challenge
... ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama spent his Sunday ...
Apr. 27, 2008
* Political Radar: Clinton Challenges Obama to a 'Lincoln-Douglas' Debate
... Eloise Harper and Sunlen Miller report: The Hillary Clinton campaign has ...
Apr. 26, 2008
* Political Punch: Obama on Those Who Say He Doesn't Respect the Flag: 'It's a Lie'
... ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports that the lanky Illinoisan said that folks ...
Apr. 26, 2008
* Political Radar: Obama on Bell: 'A Nation of Laws' Must 'Respect the Verdict'
... David Schoetz and Sunlen Miller Report: Reacting to the New York City ...
Apr. 25, 2008
* Political Radar: Obama: Rev. Wright's Response 'To Be Expected'
... ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Following brief remarks outlining his ...
Apr. 25, 2008
* Political Radar: Elitist? Obama Says Nah - He's Got "Street Cred as a Down to Earth Guy"
... ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Does having five suits, four pairs of ...
Apr. 25, 2008
* Appetite for Votes: Candidates Count Calories on the Campaign Trail
... eloise harper; sunlen miller; sarah amos ... Eloise Harper; Sunlen Miller & Sarah Amos ...
Apr. 25, 2008 | Eloise Harper; Sunlen Miller & Sarah Amos

So why didn't Sunlen, who is obviously a political reporter who has been covering Barack and the Democratic race for sometime and might be able to make some logical links and contrasts between what the candidate's been saying on the stump and what his ex-pastor has been saying in church based on something other than base conjecture, get the Byline?

Why couldn't they spare a sentence to point out that after writing two best selling novels, and hundreds of stump speeches Barack Obama himself has never said anything like Wright's comments? Did that fact even occur to them?

The claim is that this story was brought to us by ABC's "Investigative Team", if this is an example of the quality of their "Investigations" I'm glad this lot wasn't looking for Saddam's alleged WMD - they'd still be searching.

By this time the Media Narrative that Jeremiah Wright is a Radical Black Militant Christian Crazy has become solidified like granite. People like Andrea Mitchell are claiming that Wright said Obama was "just a politician" when what he actually said was that Barack's Philadelphia speech might led to some much needed racial reconciliation and healing, not that it was "just politics".

The truly sad part is that this LIE OF OMISSION has sparked a wave of domestic terrorism against the Trinity United Church of Christ including both death threats and bomb threats.

BILL MOYERS: What can you tell me about what's happened at the church since this controversy broke?

REVEREND WRIGHT: Well, the church members are very upset. Because they know it's a lie, the things that are being broadcast. Church members have been very supportive. The church members have been upset by behavior of some of the media; picking up church bulletins to get the names and addresses and phone numbers of the sick and shut-in, calling them to try to get stories. One lady they called in hospice. My members are very upset about that, our members are very upset about that. Our members are very upset about that. Our members know that this is what the media is doing. And our members know they're only doing it because of the political campaign. What have we gotten into here? People threatening, you know, Christians, some of 'em, threatening us, quoting scripture and telling us how they're going to wipe us off the face of the earth in the name of Jesus

BILL MOYERS: There had been death threats?

REVEREND WRIGHT: Yes, there have. At, both on myself and on Pastor Moss, and bomb threats at the church.

This is despicable. It's just plain insane.

Someone may fairly disagree with what Wright said, it might even make you highly upset, but when it has reached the point where someone decides to abuse their own free speach by literally threatening the lives of a pastor and his congregation - we have gone completely off the rails.

Christians and Americans threatening to kill - to MURDER - other Christians and Americans. It's gotta stop.

ABC News started this.

ABC News needs to atone.

We need an LTE/Blogstorm of Biblical Proportions to makes sure we let ABC News know, and the rest of the media know, exactly what we think of their "Journalism" on this issue. This can't be allowed to stand.

Here's a current comment from World News Tonight message board.

Charlie1959: I wonder if anyone watched the entire interview with Rev. Wright and I keep hoping some talking head will express the truth about what the interview reveals.
I for one came away angered by what had been done by the media through the endless proliferation of 5 sec sound bites that completely distort the Rev. and the church he pastors.

As an evangelical Christian I was appalled by the remarks and they made me like millions of Americans question Sen. Obama's suitability. But after listening to the pastor speak of his church and after listening to 5 minutes instead of 5 seconds of the actual sermon i found that i could embrace much of what the Rev. said and while uncomfortable with the language he uses i had to admit to being challenged both spiritually and as an American to look a little harder at myself and to examine the biases I bring to the discussion.
I will never trust sound bites or the news reporting that takes its lead from them the same way again.

Let Charlie know he is not alone.

Also here is link to Submit Your Comments to ABC News. Share your thoughts. Let them have a piece of your mind.

I plan to.

Vyan

The Toughness Question

Much of DKos and other sites have gone full-on Obama as the level of rancor has reached a fever pitch. With the strike of pro-Clinton kossacks we really aren't hearing much from the other side of the argument and that just might be something we need to hear, and Obama needs to hear.

There actually are some reasons besides sexism and racism that people have been bitterly clinging to their support of Hillary Clinton, and I think it's simply the toughness question.

Does Barack Obama have what it takes to keep fighting and fighting and fighting...?

It doesn't really matter to Hillary supporters that she has continued to shift goal-posts, gone back on previous pledges, uses her fuzzy-math to claim the lead, has helped feed the fake outrage storm over his so-called elitist anti-american-secret-muslim leanings, and has fed the fires of White Wright-Panic and Affirmative Action resentment.

And there's only one reason why.

None of the under-handed dirty tricks and double-talk matters, because Hillary is showing us all something that we haven't seen from Nancy (Impeachment-is-off-the-table) Pelosi and Harry (We-just-can't-make-the-Republicans-Filibuster-the-War-Budget-Again!) Reid.

One word.

Backbone!

I've been a long-time Bill Clinton supporter and still feel he may have been probably the best President of the 20 Century after FDR. I think he did a massively important thing when he stood up to the Republican Congress to prevent them from gutting our budget with tax cuts, and twice shutdown the government.

They thought he would cave - like a typical Democrat - but he didn't.

Whether we Obama supporters like it or not, during this election Hillary Clinton has proven to be the Freaking Energizer Bunny of Politics.

In a way, seeing this side of any democrat is refreshing.

This carefully constructed image of invulnerability - laughing hysterically whenever she's asked a tough question, rather than grimacing and barking out a be-grudging answer or ducking the issue - is working for her precisely because it feeds into a deep seated need for Democrats to feel that someone is willing to be a full-on pit fighter for them.

We've had too many promises broken.

We've seen too many would be champions of the rule of law, such as John Conyers, eventually prove to be ineffective and deflatable. Henry Waxman and Pat Leahy had promised to dog the crimes of the Bush Administration to the ends of the earth, yet one memo from Fred Fielding claiming executive priviledge and their various investigations have crashed into a solid brick wall.

Not zesty.

We won the Congressional majority, but we still haven't stopped the war - or defunded it, in fact we have more soldiers in harms way today than we did when Pelosi and Reid were sworn in.

But Hillary? She keeps Going and Going and Going...

But she's not going to win. She simply doesn't have the numbers and she keeps bleeding supers.

And even if she does win in some magically way, what exactly are we getting?

Yes, it's clear we need Democrats who are willing to take it to the mat and then some, but the other question that needs to be asked and answered is - how much of our integrity, values and common-sense our we willing to give up in the process?

Winning isn't everything if in the process of winning you have to give up what it is your actually fighting for such as fairness, justice, integrity and truth. Do Democrats have to start operating "on the dark side" (as Dick Cheney has put it), and use any available excuse simply to get what they want?

Isn't that kind of "ends justify the means" thinking that has led the Bush Administration completely off the moral precipice with their ridiculous and endless justifications for Torture, Domestic Spying and Unprovoked War?

Here's another point that both Obamans and Clintonistas need to consider. It may be true that Obama has far less Washington experience than Clinton, but we need to consider what she's done with that experience and wonder just when have we ever seen this endless fighting spirit of Clinton's before?

As posted on Democratic Underground: When has Hillary Clinton really fought for anything except herself?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales?

Where was her "fight" during the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito?

Where was her "fight" when she skipped the Senate debate and confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey?

Where was her "fight" against the Military Commissions Act?

Where was her "fight" during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental?

Where was her "fight" during the vote to extend FISA?

Where was her "fight" during the Walter Reid scandal?

Where was her "fight" during the debate on Telecom Immunity?

Where was her "fight" when she SKIPPED the Senate vote to strip TelCo immunity from the FISA bill?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of George Bush?

Where was her "fight" against the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration?

Where was her "fight" when she campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont?

Where was her "fight" when she proposed legislation to ban flag burning?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the renewal USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted AGAINST an amendment to prevent the use of cluster bombs against civilian populations?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment?

For some reason, Hillary Clinton only seems to be "a fighter" when she's fighting to feed her own naked ambition. Is that really what we want in a president?

It may be fair to say that we have seen Hillary the head-strong my-way-or-the highway pugilist at least once before: During her ill-fated Universal Health Care project.

What Hillary supposed learned, what she supposed discovered from that experience was how to accommodate, negotiate and reach across the isle. This is why she can now sit down with Richard Mellon Scaife and not involuntarily flinch from the squick factor.

There's another name for this tendency: Blind Bullheaded Ambition.

That kind of ambition and bullheadedness is likely why she voted for the Iraq War (showing she wasn't the typical squishy democrat on defense), and continues to defend that vote to this vary day.

Toughness is important, but so is Judgment.

On a variety of issues they break even. One might argue that Hillary's heath care plan has advantages over Barack's, and that his support of Nuclear Power is troubling considering the lack of a plan for long-term waste disposal.

But Barack has certainly shown better judgment when it comes to numerous issues - particularly Iraq, ethics reform and tracking down lose nukes - while Clinton has become even more Hawkish than the biggest neo-cons with her proposal for a nuclear umbrella over the middle east.

Clinton has clearly shown that she cares more about saying what people want to hear, than saying what they need to hear. This is a trait she shares with George W. Bush.

It's also clear she would be a far better President than George W. Bush could even dream of, but is that good enough? If we can do better, shouldn't we?

We democrats and the nation should realize that we need more than an unrestrained angry rampaging bull in the china shop of our foreign policy, domestic security and financial well-being.

We need a grown-up.

We need someone who can do more than rattle sabers and exploit fear to make cheap political points, but actually knows how to work with, deal with and find common ground with people whom they might otherwise have deep seated differences with. People like, ironically enough, Reverend Wright. People like William Ayers. Barack has said that he'd be willing to sit down and negotiate with those people that we don't like, such as Ahmadenijad as well as those that we do like - that he can bring disparate people together to meet common goals, rather than simply try to crush them, or "obliterate them".

We can do better, we have to.

Shunning and disavowing people we disagree with is not how you bring people together and solve problems, you have to engage them and challenge them - not simply walk away and expect them to come crawling apologetically to your feet.

Barack needs to make the argument that his wide and varied aquiantences are not a detriment, but an asset. He needs to rise to Clinton and the medias ridiculous arguments, all of them, and beat them back to where they belong - in the garbage. And do it with a smile.

Barack has the judgment, he has the rabid support of the people, but what he also needs to show is that he can go toe-to-toe with one of the toughest democratic politicians and political machines of a generation and not just barely survive it, but learn from it.

He needs to use this experience to Toughen Up, but do so without losing his integrity or his argument that he represents a shift away from the "old-time politix".

This is truly a clash of generations, the tried and true vs the new and dynamic. He needs to make that argument, and he needs his surrogates and supporters to continue to support this meme - it's time to put away the dirty tricks, the fear-mongering, the politics of division of the past and move forward with clean - but well worn and hard-working and fully engaged - hands.

Vyan

What Came First the Torture or the Criminal Conspiracy to Avoid Prison aka the "Yoo Memos"?

In an LA Times Editorial last week, Scott Horton noted that the infamous torture memos from John Yoo and Jay Baybee may in fact have been written as an after-the-fact excuse to hide War Crimes which were already in progress.

... Yoo's account of how and why the torture memos were crafted may not hold up. Congress is preparing hearings into the subject, and they have invited Yoo to testify. International law scholar Philippe Sands and other writers have punched holes in Yoo's claims about the facts. It increasingly appears that the Bush interrogation program was already being used before Yoo was asked to write an opinion. He may therefore have provided after-the-fact legal cover. That would help explain why Yoo strained to take so many implausible positions in the memos.

So the question needs to be asked, can the President and his chief Principals (Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet and Powell) knowingly commit War Crimes then simply blow it off with a pair of CYA memos?

The question of course is just how illegal did they know it was, and when did they know it?

Horton Continued.

It also appears that government lawyers had told Bush administration officials that some of the techniques already in use were illegal, even criminal. In fact, a senior Pentagon lawyer described to me exchanges he had with Yoo in which he stressed that those using the techniques could face prosecution. Yoo notes in his Pentagon memo that he communicated with the Criminal Division of the Justice Department and got assurances that prosecutions would not be brought. The question becomes, was Yoo giving his best effort at legal analysis, or was he attempting to protect the authors of the program from criminal investigation and prosecution?

We have to note, as mentioned during Congressional Testimony just yesterday by Rep Henry Wexler, that in 2002 FBI agents on the scene nearly arrested the CIA interrogators questioning Abu Zubaydah on the spot.

The videotapes, made in 2002, showed the questioning of two high-level Qaeda detainees, including logistics chief Abu Zubaydah, whose interrogation at a secret cell in Thailand sparked an internal battle within the U.S. intelligence community after FBI agents angrily protested the aggressive methods that were used. In addition to waterboarding, Zubaydah was subjected to sleep deprivation and bombarded with blaring rock music by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. One agent was so offended he threatened to arrest the CIA interrogators, according to two former government officials directly familiar with the dispute.

The videotapes made of these interrogations have since been illegally destroyed.

The initial justification for use of waterboarding and other techniques in all likelyhood did begin long before John Yoo's involvment, and in fact may have begun with a January 25,2002 memo from Alberto Gonzales which openly argued that the President and his administration just might face potential prosecution under 18 USC 2441 (The War Crimes Act) if certain precautions weren't taken, namely - eviscerating the Geneva Conventions.

"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote. The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his decision--then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell-- to exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva convention provisions. "Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution," Gonzales wrote.

The first problem with this is of course that The President Doesn't Make the Law, Congress does.

The second problem is that the Geneva Conventions have an open catch-all section which indicates that anyone whose status is undetermined are to be considered Covered by the Convention until their status (POW or Civilian Criminal) can be determined by a tribunal.

Geneva Article 5.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The President is NOT a competent tribunal.

The third problem, which was recently raised by John Ashcroft, is that treaties such as Geneva and the UN Convention Against Torture can have "Reservations" attached to it when they are ratified by the Senate. Again, yesterday, as Ashcroft attempted to use this argument to duck and dodge his own culpability in these War Crimes when confronted with them by a student at Knox college, he unwittingly revealed that yet again - Congress has the power to determine what is and isn't the law, not the President.

There was no legal basis in law (or logic for that matter) for Gonzales or President Bush to attempt to exclude the Taliban and Al Qeada from the Geneva Conventions. The only reason they did it was to avoid probable prosecution.

As it turned out when they actually began interrogations, the Gonzo Gift wasn't good enough. Even with the Jan 2002 Gonzales memo and the President's subsequent determination that Geneva didn't apply to "Enemy Combatants" there was still a fierce debate within the DOJ and Pentagon.

Apparently this conflict - as well as the capture of Abu Zubaydah - is what prompted the drafting of the Yoo Memos in March of 2002. But yet another problem arises, Yoo didn't have the authority to issue the memo.

On Friday, March 14th, 2003, that [Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Opinion] was Jay Bybee. [UPDATE: Post corrected to reflect fact that Jay Bybee remained AAG on the 13th.] Yet John Yoo issued the Opinion in his own name. John Yoo did not have the legal authority to issue this opinion . . .

. . . unless either Jay Bybee or John Ashcroft delegated Yoo the authority to issue such a momentous opinion without the supervision of the head of the office.

So here's another news flash, John Yoo has now declined to testify before congress to explain himself and his actions.

We have been expressly advised by the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice that Professor Yoo is not authorized to discuss before your Committee any specific deliberative communications, including the substance of comments on opinions or policy questions, or the confidential predecisional advice, recommendations or other positions taken by individuals or entities of the Executive Branch.

This may very well turn into a subpeona, which based on past experience, the Justice Dept won't enforce and Congress will have to vote on Contempt charges and defer the issue to a outside judge - again.

Oy vey.

With the advent of the Hamdan decision, the Gonzales rationale for torture was stripped away as the Supreme Court affirmed that "Enemy Combatants" are indeed covered by Geneva and hence protected from War Crimes. The Bush Administration responded to this with the Military Commmissions Act, which established retroactive immunity for all acts or torture or coercian which may have occurred between Sept, 2001 and 2005., revoked habeaus corpus for "alien enemy combatants", allowed for the use of self-incrimination and coerced testimony, and re-wrote the War Crimes Act to conform to the "Bybee Standard" (Torture isn't "torture" unless someone is about to die).

That's Game, Set and almost match...

Almost. Still, there is hope that they won't get away with it. First all of because some of those who've been held in detention and abused have actually met the Bybee Standard. They didn't just have a simulated death experience - They Died.

So read several of the 44 US military autopsy reports on the ACLU website -evidence of extensive abuse of US detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan 2002 through 2004. Anthony Romero, Executive Director of ACLU stated, "There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths." ACLU attorney Amrit Sing adds, "These documents present irrefutable evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations."

Guess what George? We aren't just talking about a bunch of frat-boy pranks on the night shift at Abu Ghraib, we're talking about a specific plan to implement a policy of abuse and avoid the legal consequences - a plan which has led to the death of numerous detainees. Murder is still Murder. Imagine that.

Secondly the Military Commission Act is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny under Geneva which prohibits:

the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Removing Habeaus, as well as the protection of the 5th and 8th Amendments doesn't really qualify as "affording all the judicial guarantees"... now does it?

And lastly Bush and his Cabal are unlikely to get away with it because what this long paper trail clearly shows us is there was a plot and a plan to engage in these actions, regardless of the existing law and procedures which should have been followed. Evidence was deliberately destroyed in violation of a court order and congressional subpeona to protect the guilty. What we now know is that with the various meetings of the Principals to discuss "enhanced interrogation" methods which were patently illegal is that what we really have here - is a conspiracy.

And under 18 USC 2430, that could still be a big problem for Bush and Co.

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Just as Gonzales warned in Jan 2002, the Bush administration is still at risk of being prosecuted by the next administration. Their only viable option left is to have a Pardon Party as they slide out the back door in Jan of 2009.

But let's just cling bitterly to the audacity to hope these thugs and criminals all have their day in court (something they've work so hard to deny to so many other people)

Vyan

What else would you expect from Disney/ABC?

have to admit I really really wasn't suprised by last night horrifically shoddy and superficial "debate".

Look, It's all over the internet.

Jason Linkins: Worst. Debate. Ever.

WaPo: The clear loser was ABC.

Now everyone knows ABC sucks donkey balls.

I'll be honest, I have been boycotting this network since they spent 4 hours lying about President Bill Clinton's attempts to contain Al-Qeada in "Path to 9/11", a program they aired without commericials. It was practically a free political donation to the GOP. Let's also remember that Disney/ABC refused to distribute Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and nearly torpedoed the entire project.

But y'know, all of this might be a good thing in the long run.

It's almost funny how fraking clueless they are.

Gibson: "Now the crowd is turning on me"

Dude, the whole country is turning on you.

But we shouldn't have been surprised after ABC cancelled it's support for a Reality Show featuring a Gay couple ten days before it was supposed to air when James Dobson threatened not to buy boat loads of "Narnia" DVD's in protest.

This network has been carrying water for the wingnuts for years. They're owned by one of the biggest wingnut organizations in the world - Disney. One whose entire existence is based on taking someone elses work or story, completely mutilating it into something unrecognizable but kuddly, then repackaging and mass producing it. If you want to talk about fake-ass bullshit - that's the definition of Disney and the GOP in toto.

We have Disney to thank for Hannah Montana.

We have Disney to thank not only for Britney Spears, but also Christina Aguilera and Justin Timberlake.

Talk about distortions of reality.

Hasn't the entire Bush Presidency, particularly Rumsfled, operated in a Disneyian fog of make believe for the past seven years?

The Bush administration is all Shiny-Happy-Stepford-Disney-Secret-Zombie People with no real compassion for anything except their latest dividend statements from Dean=Whitter. Doesn't DISNEY just fit people like Lorita Doan and Monica Goodling to a "T"?

Both of them could be on American Idol if they were 15-20 years hunger and halfway talented vocally, they've alrady got the plastic smiles down pretty well. (Speaking of AI, I'm glad they finally kicked than phony patriot pandering countrified waif Kelly Cook the hell off the show last night... she actually sang that stupid "Proud to be an American" song the other week and even Simon kissed her ass like it was covered in English Muffins.)

Anywhoo...

When it comes to lousy treatment of their employees Disney tops the cake, paying kids in Haiti six cents a peice to produce Dalmation toys, long hours under horrible conditions, it doesn't get much worse than Disney. Just go ask the next guy in a Goofy Costume you see if he likes having all those size 5 footprints all over his ass.

If was ABC News who went through hours and hours of Reverend Wright's sermons and created the sound byte loops we've been hearing for weeks.

THEY. ARE. PURE. EVIL.

But, they can be useful. In the case of last nights debate what they've managed to do is completely and fully Vette Barack Obama. If he wsn't fully vetted before, he is now.

None of this crap is working against Obama. Bitter-Gate was a failure for Hillary.

The post debate numbers aren't available yet, but I suspect they won't be very different. IF anything Hillary is likely to lose more ground. But here's the thing, after both Hillary and ABC have thrown all these right-wing nutball frames at Barack - the guilt by association and the flag-pin fetish - what is McCain going to have left?

How is he going to take on Barack, if Barack has already defeated his best arguements as supplied by Hillary, Gibson and that little weasel Stephanopolous?

McCAIN'S GOT NOTHING - except the "stealth muslim" whisper campaign, which is going to work so well while people are talking endlessly about Barack being in the pews of a Christian Church for 20 years. How's that illogic supposed to fly?

Here's another thing - they didn't ask either of them the TORTURE and Prosecution question, even though it was ABC News who broke the Torture Meetings Story by the NSC Principals in the first place.

Yet again, inadvertantly, Disney did us a favor.

Other than KO and the Daily Show there's been a complete MSM news blackout on Bush's having admitted to being a War Criminal.

April 12, 2008 - Washington, DC -- In a stunning admission to ABC news Friday night, President Bush declared that he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details of the CIA's use of torture. Bush reportedly told ABC, "I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved." Bush also defended the use of waterboarding.

Recent reports indicate that high-level advisers including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet were part of the National Security Council's "Principals Committee" that met regularly and approved the CIA's use of "combined" "enhanced" interrogation techniques, even pushing the limits of the now infamous 2002 Justice Department "torture memo." These top advisers reportedly signed off on how the CIA would interrogate suspects – whether they would be slapped, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning.

"We have always known that the CIA's use of torture was approved from the very top levels of the U.S. government, yet the latest revelations about knowledge from the president himself and authorization from his top advisers only confirms our worst fears," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "It is a very sad day when the president of the United States subverts the Constitution, the rule of law, and American values of justice."

It's only the bloggers who seem to know what's really been going on.

If the Bush Administration became fully aware of Barack's stated intention to Prosecute their asses, he'd be sure to pardon everyone from himself down to Rumsfeld, Condi, Tenet, Scooter, Addington, Gonzales, Yoo and Bybee before he goes out the door on Jan 20th, 2009. Just like his father did with all the people who'd been convicted during Iran-Contra, many of who came back and were working in his son's Administration.

We really don't want him doing that do we?

Let's just keep the entire Barack is going to Prosecute you Murderous War Criminals thing under our hats okay? We really don't need to give al-Bushco our entire Playbook now do we?

Vyan

Gonzo Can't Get a Job

After an extra-ordinary duck, bob and weave performance before several sessions of congress last year. Not to mention extremely virilent protests at his various speaking engagements, (Guess who's NOT going to be earning $10 Mil a year for the next ten years?) former White House Counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can't seem to find himself a JOB. From the NYTimes.

WASHINGTON — Alberto R. Gonzales, like many others recently unemployed, has discovered how difficult it can be to find a new job. Mr. Gonzales, the former attorney general, who was forced to resign last year, has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster, Washington lawyers and his associates said in recent interviews.

He has, through friends, put out inquiries, they said, and has not found any takers. What makes Mr. Gonzales’s case extraordinary is that former attorneys general, the government’s chief lawyer, are typically highly sought.

I don't know - why would anyone have a problem hiring a guy who tried to make War Crimes Legal? A man who lied about having and innocent man Rendered from JFK airport to Saudi Arabia where he was tortured? Who once said "Upholding the Constitution was a GRAVE THREAT to the U.S."? A man who couldn't even find someone to defend him ON FOX NEWS!

Seriously,

Here's what Brit Hume said about Gonzales as he slunk he way out of the DOJ back door.

Gonzales was a man almost without fans in Washington at the end, because he was never much appreciated or accepted by the conservative base of the Republican party and the conservative activists in Washington. And he certainly wasn’t popular among the Democrats. He was simply a crony. And I don’t mean that word to sound any worse than it is, but that was the case here.

So it seems not even the Conservatives ever really like this rat-fucker.

That seems to explain quite a bit, particulary why Gonzo seems to be headed for the soup line.

The greatest impediment to Mr. Gonzales’s being offered the kind of high-salary job being snagged these days by lesser Justice Department officials, many lawyers agree, is his performance during his last few months in office. In that period, he was openly criticized by lawmakers for being untruthful in his sworn testimony. His conduct is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department, which could recommend actions from exonerating him to recommending criminal charges. Friends set up a fund to help pay his legal bills.

Asked about reports that law firms have not taken up feelers from Mr. Gonzales, Robert H. Bork Jr., a corporate communications specialist and his spokesman, said Mr. Gonzales was talking to many people about the next steps in his career. “He is considering his opportunities in law and business,” Mr. Bork said, “but after many years in public service he is considering his options carefully.”

d Mr. Gonzales “looks forward to the conclusion of the department’s inquiries and getting on with his life.”

Those of us who've been paying attention think Gonzales options should start with prison and end with a plea bargin for War Crimes, Obstruction of Justice and violations of the Voting Rights Act -- and he should take plenty of time weighing them.

Like a lifetime.

Couldn't have happened to a bigger dick-head IMO.

Vyan

But What does Iraq Want?

In the midst of this weeks latest edition of the Dave and Ryan Magic Show on capital hill, where it appears that if things get worse in Iraq, we have to stay and if things get better in Iraq, we have to stay - no matter what we have to again wait until September comes again - everyone seems to have completely forgotten to bother asking what the Iraqis want the U.S. do?

Well, here's what Iraqi PM Maliki says:

The prime minister told Bush during a 20-minute telephone conversation on Wednesday that Iraqi security forces are capable of carrying out their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation permits, according to a senior government adviser who sat in on the phone conversation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the confidential details.

Oops. Does this mean that Maliki wants us to Cut and Run?

Not only has the Bush Administration been completely oblivious to the desires of the American People...

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

Fluctuations? Do these look like "fluctuations" to you?

They also don't care what the Iraqi people seem to think. (via The Wapo)

...61 percent said the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making the security situation there worse.

No matter what the sitaution is on the ground, Patreaus and Crocker have made it clear that they remain hell bent for steel, and will pause the troop draw down, keeping our troops levels in Iraq at or even beyond the breaking point until at least 45 days past July, ensuring that there wil be at least 140,000 troops in the War Zone when the next President takes office.

In a speech at the White House, Bush hailed what he described as Iraqi progress in the political, economic and security realms. However, he said, Iraq remains "the convergence point" for two of the greatest current threats to the United States: al-Qaeda and Iran. He said that despite the reduction of a quarter of U.S. combat power in Iraq by the end of July, U.S. troops would continue hunting down members of the group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. And he warned Iran to stop funding, arming and training extremist groups battling U.S. forces and the Iraqi government.

"If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, our troops and our Iraqi partners," Bush said.

He spoke after two days of congressional testimony in which Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker described significant, but "fragile and reversible," progress in Iraq. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, laid out a plan to reduce his troop strength to about 140,000 -- down from about 170,000 at the height of a "surge" last year -- and to suspend further reductions while commanders take stock of the situation.

This of course flies directly in the face of Bush previous promise that if the Iraqis asked us to leave - we would go.

BUSH: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave. [...] We are there at their request. [...] but if they were to make the request, we wouldn’t be there.

Yeah, sure we would.

Vyan

Morgan Spurlock: A Real American Hero to the Rescue

n this midst of this weeks news that President Bush is so intent on "smoking him out of his holes" that he walked out of a recent NATO meeting about Afghanistan because - well, the meeting had gone on too long for him.

Bush is no fan of windy meetings and evidently had had his fill. He left behind Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to represent him for the rest of the session, which concerned NATO operations in Afghanistan, but his departure was so sudden and unexpected that he left some of his motorcade behind, inculding his press pool, when he got into his car and headed back to his hotel.

Who knows maybe it was past his bedtime, what with Jetlag in Romania and all..

So in this bleak time we have but ONE MAN to look toward to help save this nation from itself, and track down the most deadly butcherous mass murderer in all history.

Who is that lone solitary figure of Bruckheimer-ish virility and manhood?

Morgan Spurlock maker of "Super Size Me" and FX's "30 Days".

Let us not forget that on George Bush's Watch, the Taliban and Al Qeada have merged operations, and also that in Pakistan - where Bin Ladin is most rumoured to be - there is a non-aggresion treaty between that government - our supposedly ally - and the Taliban.

Does that mean that the ally of our ally is not our enemy it? Or does it?

In the spirit that this farcical "Search for Osama" has become, Spurlock now brings you : Where in the world is Osama bin Laden?

Coming this Fall.

I know some of you are probably waiting on baited breath for the new season of 24 where Jack Bauer (Sets Congress Straight about Torture - but I for one can't wait for this.

Vyan

George Carlin and the Truth about American Pride and God's Blessing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aLkKtBZHi4

In this section from his recent HBO Special, comedic legend George Carlin does an amazing job of putting all of this "God Bless America"/"Proud to be an American" Crap in exactly the perspective it needs to be.

Here are some excepts:

I saw a slogan on a guys car that said "Proud to be an American" and I thought "What the fuck does that mean?"

I'm fully Irish, and when I was a kid I would go to the St Patrick's Day parade and they sold a button that said "Proud to be Irish", but I knew that on Columbus day they sold the same button only it said "Proud to be Italian", then came Black Pride, and Puerto Rican Pride. And I could never understand national or ethnic pride, because to me Pride should be reserved for something you achieve on your own.

Being Irish isn't a skill, it's a fucking genetic accident.

You wouldn't be proud to be 5'11". You wouldn't be proud to have a pre-disposition for colon cancer.

And then he gets to the entire "God Bless America" thang.

Here's another slogan you run into all the time, "God Bless America".

Once again, respectfully, I say to myself "What the Fuck Does that Mean?"

"God Bless America?" Is that a request? Is tht a demand? Is that a suggestion? Politicians say it at the end of every speech, as if it was some sort of verbal tick that they can't get rid of.

I guess they figure if they leave it out someone is going to think they're "bad Americans". Let me tell you something folks, God Does not give a flying fuck about America, ok? He doesn't care. He never cared about this country. He never has. He never will. He doesn't care about this country any more than he cares about Mongolia, Transylvania, Pittsburgh, the Suez Canal or the North Pole. He simply doesn't care, ok.

Listen, there are 200 countries in the world, do these people honestly think God is sitting around picking out his favorites?

Why would he do that?

Why would God have a favorite country? And why would it be America of all the countries? Because we have the most money? Because he likes our national anthem? Maybe it's because he heard we have 18 delicious flavours of classic Rice-O-Ronie?

It's Delusional Thinking.

If these people believe in God, they must have heard that God Loves Everyone, and he loves them equally. So why would these people ask God to do something that goes against his own teaching? Maybe they ought to check with that Jesus fella. They're always talking about "What would Jesus do"?

They don't want to know so they can do it, they just want to know so they can tell other people to do it.

Personally, I think he has a point.

Vyan