Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995 |
Bush End Game Bush - Second Term Bush - First Term Who Is Bob Gates? 2004 Campaign
Behind
Colin Powell's Legend
The
2000 Campaign
Media
Crisis
The Clinton Scandals Nazi Echo The Dark Side of Rev. Moon Contra Crack Lost History The October Surprise
"X-Files"
International |
Editor’s Note: A number of readers had comments about our recent stories on Campaign 2008, from our assessment of John McCain’s dishonesty to the Democratic battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
John McCain: More of the same unfortunately but far worse because despite being a victim of an unnecessary war against a small, distant under-developed nation which had never harmed us, McCain loves war and will start another if and when our citizens deputize him. Logically, most of those who suffer as he did in war become opposed to all wars. I can think of few that do not fit in that category. Maybe, Adolf Hitler, a holder of the Iron Cross who may have been gassed in World War One, fits. Steve, USN, WW2 -- "Is John McCain a Liar" -- the best article on this subject to date -- and I've read most! Difficult for me to even consider voting in the presidential election, if Hillary is not the Democratic candidate. I'm still rooting for her. I don't give up easily. Gloria Mr. McCain will not suffer too severe a setback on this primarily because most Americans don't understand the ins and outs of the Keating case or what McCain seems to be guilty of in this instance. A sex scandal is simple. This has too many details (like many political scandals that end up going unnoticed until we taxpayers end up footing the bill) and most Americans simply do not have either the time or attention span to devote to tracking this kind of thing down (they're too busy working to pay their bills) or they don't care because they believe that all politicians do things like this. I read the story that the Times printed, (thanks to your website), don't believe it was a smear, and think that your website is a beacon of investigative reporting. The mainstream media should be so dogged! Steve Hill -- 'Is John McCain a liar?' Is he a politician? Is he a 'fortunate son,' the other kind that is the progeny of some highly-placed military personnel? What really happened in Vietnam? How did he earn his medals? What has he to do in the WH other than continue his covering-up of his Alamaine, IVe -- Hello: I watched as Obama defied the assault the Clinton`s waged against him in the Wisconsin primary. This is only a precurser to future assaults from two people who do not take defeat graciously. Bill has shown us how he becomes a loose cannon when faced with this prospect. Hillary was not gracious enough to note her concession to Obama`s win. In some way, the assault they are going to wage against him on the run up to the big three states on March 4th, will be a test to his mettle, before the Republicans unleash their own kill machine. I just read an article that may rebuff the Republicans on his position on one of his foreign policy proposals, when he stated he would go into Pakistan, based on intelligence and take OBL, out. Our government has just done that very thing recently, when they, with a predator drone, unleashed weapons on an Al Queada operative, and killed him. According the to the article, it was done without the knowledge being shared with Pakistan. This should be brought up in his defense. As I watched him speak in Texas, something occurred to me, as I watched and was inspired as many are, I realized he has bridged an ugly gap that has plagued this nation for a long time. I saw a man, man as described in the biblical sense, who shed the bonds of race, creed, religion, and gender, or any other tag that some have used to bring others down. Although he reminds us of MLK, he is finally accomplishing the dream, he set in motion, before he was prematurely denied. MLK`s real message was equality and justice for all, which was misread as just an effort, to benefit the black community. These are the things Obama wants to free us from. I wrote you, how daunting a task this will be, in the face of this insidious power structure that has slowly by trickery and deceit, gained control of a government that was not theirs to steal. This is supposed to be a government of the people and by the people, and for the people. Has there been gross treason involved here? As we all know and cherish, a group of men, who by modern standards would have been called naive to challenge the authority and power of an unjust king and go on to, with the help of a rag tag army, who drew its ranks from the pool of all men thirsting for real freedom and justice, and went on fueled by hope that helped to create their resolve, and emerge victorious. Whether the American people realize it or not, we face the same situation, with enemies foreign and domestic. Just maybe we as a people again can restore this nation to that ideal, by helping a man like Obama, who claims himself as not a perfect vessel. What a departure from arrogance and self aggrandizement. So, I myself will cling to this hope, that is so ridiculed, by those who will apply all they have, to kill this dream. Bill -- What is going on with this bash-the-Clintons article? -- I have been reading your articles and books for a number of years but I must object to your treatment of, and position on, Senator Clinton. She is by far the most qualified candidate. For example, why don't you refer to her, and not "the Clinton's". She is the one running. Why don't you address the incredible sexism and double standards that she is facing? Why don't you hold Senator Obama accountable for what his supporters are doing to her on the campaign trail? For example, college student have been holding up signs that say "Got Pimp" when she is on campus. Why not address the harassment her supporters face when they wear her campaign buttons? Why hasn't he spoken up about this? (I guess there is change and then there is "change"). Why don't you discuss the fact that she actually has a better and more "progressive" health care plan? Why don't you point out that Senator Obama was not in the U.S. Senate during the Iraq vote. He was a state senator then with an entirely different responsibility and constituency (not to mention less information). And while I'm at it, he did lift that passage from Gov Patrick. For someone who is all fluff, it seems that even his fluff is not his own fluff. Look at what happened to Biden on a similar issue. Why do you give Senator Obama a pass on everything, all the time? I am sure you have many readers, women, who are really angry at your coverage. Renee Mittler -- Thank you for your explanation on your coverage of the 2008 campaign. I, for one, am grateful that you prefer to provide honest assessments rather than partisan coverage. -- http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/021508.html -- I wanted to respond to your explanation of your view of Clinton/Obama, with my support of your presentation and perspective, uncensored by the left or the right, Republican or Democrat. I personally appreciate your independence presenting various political figures with all of their boils, snafu's, poor decisions, flip-flops, and corporate connections exposed. Your latest article explaining your position on the Democrats is, to any rational person, not criticism but merely stating facts. I have sent it to my Republican son in the hope that he will recognize the differences from the left and the right. We can examine the faults of those on our side and on the other side. I don't think he sees much of that coming from the right. -- I believe that your assessments have been more than fair. Furthermore, I view it as very important to point out the differences between the two Democratic candidates in this all-important election. John McCain will be the nominee, according to most people watching the election process. And, there will be plenty of time to address him once our candidate is selected. Unfortunately, I find that Hillary supporters are blind to her flaws, almost militant--and I am a woman who would love to see a woman as president. For your combined uncompromising candor and your supreme investigative skills (not to mention your constant remembrance of your dear friend who ended up being a victim for telling the truth and who obviously inspires you), I plan to make yet another donation to one of the finest blogs on the Internet. Thank you so very much for being around. Janice Straub -- A little investigative reporting revealed the following personal profiles: Barack ("blessed" in Swahili) Hussein Obama, Jr., was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Shirley Ann Dunham, a Kansan of English ancestry, and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Luo Kenyan. Dunham was part Cherokee Indian and a distant descendant of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy. Obama's parents met and married in 1960 when they were students at the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii. They separated when he was two and later divorced. Barack's father moved to Connecticut to pursue his Ph.D. studies in economics at Harvard. His mother, an anthropologist, married another East-West Center student, Lolo Soetoro. In 1967, the family moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. Barack (known as Barry in his childhood) lived in Jakarta with his mother and stepfather for four years (1967-1971). Obama first attended Catholic School Fransiskus Assisis, then transferred to State Elementary School (SDN) Besuki, now known as SDN Menteng 01, where classes were taught in Indonesian. In the third grade, he wrote an essay saying he wanted to become president. At the time, his teacher was unsure which country he wanted to be president of. Recently, controversy was stirred up about the Besuki school. Red-meat right-wingers at Insight magazine claimed the school was a madrassa. They tried to spread an ugly rumor Obama received a radical Islamic education in Indonesia which is a Muslim nation. Actually, Besuki is an elite secular public school. Founded in 1934, it was reserved for Dutch and Indonesian nobility, such as the grandchildren of former president Soeharto and veeps Hamzah Haz and Tri Soetrisno. Only the very best students are permitted to attend this school. Barack's mother sent him back to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents when he was ten. He went to Punahou school from the fifth grade until he graduated in 1979. While growing up in Hawaii, Barack briefly met his father in 1971. For the first time, he realized his multi-ethnic heritage. Questions about who he was drove him to drink and drugs in his teenage years. He recalled he used these substances to "push questions of who I was out of my mind." After high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles and attended Occidental College for two years, then transferred to Columbia University. There he majored in political science and received a B.A. in International Relations. He worked for B.I.C. and NYPIRG in New York before taking a job in Chicago as a community organizer. Later, he entered Harvard Law School and received a J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991. Barack worked his way up the political chain in Chicago to become the junior senator from Illinois and a candidate for the US presidency. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton was born in Chicago of English, Welsh and, perhaps, some Native American ancestry. As a child, she participated in many church, school and athletic activities. She was a member of the student council, debating team and the National Honor Society. She was also a National Merit Finalist. Instilled with conservative political values from her father and concern for social justice from her mother, Hillary became a Goldwater Girl in 1964 and a staunch admirer of Dr. Martin Luther King. At Wellesley College, she joined the Young Republicans in her freshman year. She left that organization as her positions on civil rights and the Viet Nam war changed. She said she was "a mind conservative and a heart liberal." Hillary preferred to work for change from within the system rather than foment radical actions from without. In 1968, she was elected president of Wellesley's student body. Even then, her classmates believed she had executive potential. After attending the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, she decided to leave the Republican party for good, citing Nixon's negative campaign strategies and "veiled" racist messages. Hillary wrote her senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer, Saul Alinsky, which was later suppressed by the Clinton White House. In 1969, she graduated with honors in political science. She was the first student in Wellesley history to deliver the commencement address, receiving a long standing ovation. At Yale Law School, she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. During her Yale years, she mixed the writing of scholarly papers, summer law research, occasional campaign work and pro bono legal services with her undergraduate and post-graduate studies. She served as a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund and the 1974 impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon. After passing the Arkansas bar exam and failing the District of Columbia test, she decided to marry Bill Clinton and follow him to Arkansas. With this commitment, her fate was sealed. Later, she wrote, "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head." As we all know now, this explanation is only an excuse. Hillary hit her stride as First Lady of Arkansas during the dozen years Bill was governor. She did important work improving child care, health care and poverty programs. As a partner at the prestigious Rose Law firm, Clinton had a higher income than her husband. After Bill won the 1992 presidential election, she became America's First Lady and the most influential woman on Earth. Despite several significant scandals, she employed her position and power to help others, especially children. When judging the qualifications to be president of these two extraordinary people, it's nearly impossible to score an advantage for either lengthy resume. But, a striking difference does emerge when comparing their elected service records. Hillary Clinton served one full term as the junior senator from New York. Most of the early months of her second term were spent campaigning for president. As senator, she authored and passed into law only 20 pieces of legislation (SEE: Amadeo Sogni's article A Light In The Darkness). None of these enactments is important or consequential. Barack Obama, during his first eight years in elected office, sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced: 233 health care reform measures; 125 poverty and public assistance bills; 112 crime fighting bills; 97 economic bills; 60 human rights bills; 21 ethics reform bills; 15 gun control bills and many others. During his first year in the senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. In all, during his years in elected office, including the US senate, Barack Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1,096. When voters review each candidate's record from this perspective, it's very clear who's been doing the people's business. After personal sources of their ambition are compared, the voters will discover another distinct difference. Obama's ambition is driven by his particular experience of injustice and his desire to right the wrongs in the world. He never knew his Kenyan father. He met him only briefly in Hawaii when he was ten years old. He lived with his stepfather only four years. Although he had many stepbrothers and stepsisters, they grew up in Indonesia and Africa while he grew up in Hawaii. For the most part, he lived the lonely life of an only child. He suffered crude, racist insults from his high school classmates. He felt shame and self-hatred due to his multi-ethnic parentage and broken home. (NOTE: The media compound the confusion by catagorizing multi-ethnic marriages as bi-racial. Since there is only one race, the human race, all marriages and relationships are naturally intra-racial or multi-ethnic. They can't be inter-racial or bi-racial because these words presuppose there is more than one race. Of course, there are many ethnic, cultural and tribal groups. But, there is only one human race). Barack's intense ambition is driven by his need to become a shining example of what an ideal man, husband and father should be. Despite the absence of family role models in his youth, Obama found his way through the maturation process. Today, he fights hard to help others because he knows the pain of growing up lonely and loveless in a broken home. Hillary's ambition is driven by a genuine desire to help others, sparked by her mother's influence. Unlike Barack, she had strong support from her family. The major mistake she made was following Bill Clinton to Arkansas. If she'd stayed in Washington, she may've forged a career which could've led to a presidential bid on her own terms. Instead, she spent 20 years as a surrogate parent to Bill's petty peccadilloes and gross infidelities. While Hillary gets high marks for boundless patience, she doesn't come to the presidential campaign battle-hardened by self-defining struggles in the public arena. Since marrying Bill, every official position Hillary's had she's received by appointment. Clinton won her senate seat largely as a result of her strong name recognition as former First Lady. At this point in time, her senate record indicates she's no emerging Eleanor Roosevelt. It's Barack, not Hillary, who is the battle-hardened warrior in the effort to secure the Democratic nomination. Obama's soaring confidence is as evident as Clinton's faltering caution. This has little to do with misogyny, but has everything to do with personal history. It's not enough for Hillary to believe she should be president because it's her turn or to set a precedent. Oddly, Bill may be pushing her presidential bid to discharge his guilt for all the bad things he did to her over 30 years in a marriage of convenience. When you compare the Clinton and Obama marriages, there's simply no comparison. The Obamas represent a potential First Family most Americans can truly admire. The same can't be said of the Clinton Clan. It's a family of Harvard lawyers versus a family of Yale lawyers. This is a rare observation which is never noted. Barack or Hillary? The choice seems to be very clear. Obama is moved by personal experience, not political expediency. He would make the tough choices to move our nation forward as he perfects his reasons for doing so. He wants to fill the holes in his heart with memories of a life well lived and studded with exceptional achievement. That which does not destroy you will make you strong. The same could be said of Hillary. The difference is Barack discarded his sad past and replaced it with a transcendent present. Hillary is still bound by a sad past -- at present. Nothing illustrated her predicament more than when she was caught on camera with an exasperated look on her face. During a campaign stop at a department store, Bill wandered off with the crowd, leaving Hillary alone and bewildered. This scene graphically captured Hillary's life. And it wasn't a pretty picture. Hillary is held back by the heavy weight of Bill's baggage. She is polarizing because her recent past is polarizing. It hangs around her neck like a lead anchor. As president, no matter how earnest her decisions might be, she'll always be second-guessed because Bill will be lurking in the background. So, the choice is between a self-made man and a lead-weighted woman. The election of either candidate will set an historic precedent. Everyone's vote should be guided by a hunger to build a more perfect future, not to protect a very dubious past. Ultimately, it's a choice between Barack's confident carriage and Bill's heavy-duty baggage. A consistent message of hope and compassion is simply more appealing than a dark message of constant division and despair. With America's survival precariously dangling in the balance, it's never been more important to choose wisely. Franklin L. Johnson -- Thank you for writing your "Bush Turns US Soldiers into Mass Murders" commentary As a military brat who grew up fascinated by the US Air Aces of WWII - the "knights of the air" who single-handedly saved friendly big bomber crews or Navy ships from devastating enemy attacks (Chicago's O'Hare airport is named after one such WWII Navy ace, Commander Edward "Butch" O'Hare, who saved his carrier in 10-to-1 fight) I have long realized that war encapsulates the duality of human nature - Good & Evil - in rapid motion. Even American fighter and bomber pilots, in the elation of victory, noted the stomach-churning nature of their deadly work. One Navy SBD pilots felt that stomach churning disgust for the devastation he had just wrought after pulling out from a successful dive-bomb attack that incinerated one of the Japanese carriers during the "miracle" battle of Midway - the battle that wreaked revenge on 4 of the 6 Japanese carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor, the battle that finally stopped the tide of overwhelming Japanese victories in the Pacific. Similar feelings of queasiness if not outright disgust were felt by thousands of pilots attacking enemy troop ships, transports, trucks, or even single enemy aircraft or gun positions, all through the war(s). And that was the aerial "clean" side of war - not the up-close, bayonet-in-your-belly combat, muddy trenches, and starvation rations/diseases that infantrymen have fought for centuries. During the American Revolution, young teenage (13 yr. old) Andrew Jackson along with his two older brothers was captured by British soldiers suppressing the revolution in North Carolina. Jackson famously survived his capturing Brit officer slashing at him with his saber, but the three Jackson boys were sent to a deadly British prison hulk, the kind of prison where every morning bodies of those who had died during the night were tossed over the side. Mrs. Jackson won parole for her young son Andrew, and worked as a nurse in the hulks to ease the condition of her other two boys, eventually winning parole for her two elder sons. But that was for nought... both older Jackson boys died before they made it back to the family home a hundred miles west, Andrew only survived the march home by prevailing against dysentery (?), and his mother died soon after words. Andrew Jackson would harbor an intense hatred of the British for killing his two brothers and his mother for the next thirty years - a hatred so virulent that he would personally accuse the sainted President Washington of "treason!" for the pro-British treaty of ____, and, amazingly, Jackson would have his own personal revenge almost a full thirty years later, when his outgunned, out-manned ragtag army of militia, volunteers, pirates, and slaves would beat the cream of the British army (that had just defeated Napoleon in Europe) into the muck and mud in front of his defenses of New Orleans. This amazing story of perseverance and hatred harbored for a lifetime illustrates the hazards of America's Iraq war. Heck, even after the FIRST Gulf 1 War - the "good war" to expel Saddam's army from Kuwait that saw relatively few US casualties - we Americans suffered the BLOWBACK of not one but two deadly Veteran attacks on American society, Timmy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing, and DC sniper bodycount. It is my understanding of the brutality of war - and its long-term consequences - that makes me spend so much time reading and writing about the current American war in Iraq and the politics behind it. For these reasons, I appreciate your column on the BRUTALIZATION of American troops in the Iraq war - just as all others soldiers in all other wars have become brutalized and inured to the horrors of war. My suggestion is that you change your targets from the Republicans and Democratic primary candidates, to the Democratic Leadership. I have long been writing (on blog posts and chat-sites) that it has been COWARDLY of the Bush-Cheney White House, Pentagon, and military to HIDE BEHIND the KANGAROO COURT CONVICTIONS of female VOLUNTEER PRIVATES for the "ABUSE" photos of Abu Ghraib. The whole world understands that the disgusting, sadistic "abuse" photos were part of the DoD's plans to "SOFTEN UP" Iraqi prisoners ("insurgent"/"terrorists" suspects) before handing them over to the "pros" - professional interrogators - in the "military intel" wing of the prison. Like privates Lyndie England and Sabrina Fast, General BARBARA KARPINSKI was also MADE A SCAPEGOAT for the Abu Ghraib "abuse" scandal - even though she testified that she was not even allowed access to the Military Intel wing of the prison, then under command of General Barbara Fast! (From which screams of prisoners being tortured were heard nightly by prisoners and guards in the "non-Intel" side of the prison.) I also believe it is COWARDLY of the "Democratic" "leadership" to HIDE behind those DoD KANGAROO COURT CONVICTIONS. FOUR LONG YEARS LATER, the Democrats are STILL "shucking and jiving" around the questions of DoD/White House ORDERED ABUSE - even as Pres. Bush and Vice Pres. Cheney INSIST ON THE "right" TO TORTURE PRISONERS TO DEATH, AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION!! (And with NO oversight by anyone or any agency of government - the Entire US government as potential dungeon-masters and executioners)! Mr. Parry, I am trying to write a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, encouraging him to buck the House Leadership and HOLD BASIC HEARINGS into any impeachable offenses by the Bush-Cheney administration. Representative Dennis Kucinich has courageously done his part, and (with his own ferocious primary re-election battle back in Ohio), it is now up to others higher in the Democratic hierarchy to take up the torch. I would like to ask Chairman Conyers "To who do you owe your Loyalty?" I have always been intrigued by the book, "The Price of Loyalty" about Paul O'Neil's term as Bush's Secretary of Treasury early in the Bush-Cheney first term. "WHY did self-made financial wunderkind O'Neill, the salvation of Alcoa aluminum and manager who actually increased that company's environmental and worker relations while greatly boosting company profits, find it necessary to title his book "LOYALTY" - much less to the privileged frat-boy son of wealth who went AWOL during the Vietnam war, and parlayed several losing business ventures into a stint as the front-man for a baseball consortium that used government powers of taxation and condemnation to build a stadium, and parlayed that one success into two terms as Texas governor (in the process trashing the Texas budget surplus left him by his gubernatorial predecessor, Ann Richards). My question to Chairman Conyers is, "To whom do you owe your loyalty?" "Do you owe your loyalty to the the constituents YOU REPRESENT... of to the Democratic LEADERSHIP hierarchy which claims you submission?" It is not just Chairman Conyers who must ask this vital question. I have stayed up late hours watching speeches late into the night by the Democrat's gang-of-thirty (actually, "ThirtySomethingDemocrats" NO SUCH LUCK! Not only had Debbie Wasserman-Schultz predictably followed the war-frenzy-lust of her fellow AIPAC (Senator) Joe Lieberman, but even more disheartening, KENDRICK MEEKS, TOO, is FOLLOWING the Democrat "leadership" line - AGAINST THE WISHES of the VAST MAJORITY OF HIS CONSTITUENTS - that there be NO Impeachment hearings. To put that in plain English, Nancy Pelosi and the "Democratic" "leadership" have twisted arms and smashed kneecaps so well, that even former committed young firebrands Wasserman-Schultz and Meeks NO LONGER REPRESENT their constituents, but instead represent the war-lobby, AIPAC lobby, and Democrat 'leadership' AGAINST their own constituents! This of course is quite appalling. SO the question goes to Representative Conyers: "TO WHOM DO YOU OWE YOUR LOYALTY?" "TO NANCY PELOSI, who, like Dianne Feinstein, has taken a privileged, 'limousine liberal" millionaire's path to a leadership position in the Democratic hierarchy, or to YOUR OWN lifelong CONSTITUENTS?" WHAT, Chairman Conyers, ARE YOU AFRAID OF? Are you afraid of the WRATH of NANCY PELOSI? Of the possibility that if Vice President Cheney is impeached and resigns, the Republicans might appoint John McCain to be Vice President, giving him a huge advantage during campaign 2008? Or are you AFRAID of the reaction of the Bush White House and their reactionary supporters to an energetic prosecution of the Constitutional process by your committee?" I believe that in the course of due diligence, ALL of these factors should be enumerated (listed) by Conyers' judiciary committee, but that NONE OF THESE _FEARS_ should DETRACT from the prosecution of JUSTICE and the Constitutional DUTY of PROVIDING OVERSIGHT - much less in the face of a serially abusive administration such as this one. At some point in time, the public and media's fascination with the "blank slate" candidacy of the Junior Senator from Illinois will wear off, Then the huge, billion-dollar corporate media, and Republican Karl Rove ATTACK MACHINE, will FOCUS on the Democratic nominee. (For that reason alone, I hope Hillary stays in the race.... which also focuses huge public attention on the sordid side of the DLC/Clinton money machine, per your own columns). FOR THESE REASONS it is VITAL that CHAIRMAN CONYERS STEP UP TO THE PLATE, and FULFILL HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF OFFICE that he pledged when becoming a congressmen, "to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." It is also vital that the 'Democratic' "leadership" be pressured to STOP HIDING behind their (electoral) FEARS, or kangaroo court SCAPEGOATS, and "war on terror" Strawmen, and start DEFENDING whistle blowers such as Ambassador Wilson, Sibel Edmonds, Valerie Plame Wilson (and all the CIA agents and "assets" betrayed by her outing), Coleen Rowley, and dozens of others, each of whom has been piece-meal sold down the river by Democrat neglect. (Including the Security Guard whistleblower from the Indian Point Nuclear power plant, who has spoken out against the incredibly weak preparations to defend that plant from potential ground or air attacks, only to be fired and targeted for harassment since his courageous stand). Mr.Parry, there are now DOZENS of good, accomplished "liberal"/"left" (I prefer "the democratic wing of the Democratic Party") websites out there, but there is still only a DISJOINTED and DISORGANIZED _NARRATIVE_ of how the Democrat "leadership" CONTINUALLY _ENABLES_ the Bush administration's WORST IMPULSES. And as the documentary on Indian Point powerplant illustrates, that site is STILL AS VULNERABLE to a CATASTROPHIC ATTACK today, as it was on September 10th, 2001. Well, there you have it, Mr. Parry. IF Americans are going to continue to deserve a genuine democratic government, we Americans can NOT rely on one or two candidates or front-runners to bear the burden of restoring democratic government and processes for us. We - the energized, the enabled, the already-focused, the web-literate and empowered, MUST FOCUS PUBLIC ATTENTION on the Democrat "leadership's" COMPLICITY WITH the war-lobby agenda. President Eisenhower himself warned us to this SOLEMN DUTY and OBLIGATION in his famous "military industrial complex" speech. (Kevin Costner's "JFK" movie took considerable liberties with facts, the truth, and Clay Shaw's reputation, but merely for providing us with a review of Eisenhower's speech and events leading up to US involvement in and costs of the VIETNAM WAR, it probably serves a positive historical purpose.) "REPRESENTATIVES" Conyers, Meeks, and Wasserman-Schultz ("Representative" is the correct word, though "Congressman/woman is gaining popularity) SHOULD GET BACK IN THE BUSINESS OF _REPRESENTING_ their Constituents, and NOT the WAR-LOBBY and "Democrat" "leadership"! And Finally, Speaker Pelosi, in REFUSING to hold EVEN BASIC HEARINGS on "have their been ANY cases of impeachable offenses committed by this White House?" is FOLLOWING the in the _treacherous_ and dereliction-of-duty footsteps of the Democratic Senators in December of 2000.. NOT ONE of whom would sign on to the Black Congressional Caucus for a SIMPLE_CONGRESSSIONAL_INVESTIGATION into what we KNOW was MASSIVE VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT in Florida by the Katherine Harris/Jeb Bush administration. (Heck: Republican officials were so outraged at Katherine Harris giving up her "safe" seat to run for Senate, that they _blatantly_ instructed their computerized vote machines to swallow 16,000 votes cast in that election as "UNDERVOTES" - Florida District 13 tallying EIGHTEEN THOUSAND non-votes for Congress in that 2006 off-year election, even though neighboring, similar sized districts only had "undervote" totals in the low 2,000 range.) Mr. Parry, I hope you will be part of the effort to focus America's attention to where it is most critical... TO DEMOCRAT "LEADERSHIP" COMPLICITY with the Right-Wing DISENFRANCHISEMENT, TORTURE, WAR-POWERS, WAR, and BUSTED BUDGETS agenda. And that all the librul/Democratic posts and blogs out there can refine, consolidate, and distill to a LIST the TRUE narrative of just how Pelosi & crew ENABLE the White House's totalitarian powers and aims, from one to one-thousand. Lj -- VerityFidelity To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here. |
|
RSS Feed
Home
Links
Contact Us
Books
Bookmark
Digg
Email
Printer friendly