Wednesday, December 31, 2003

Tom Tomorrow BACK! 

He comes out swinging in his first blogging since I can't remember when. For those of you who don't know, to me this guy is a God. Rather than me synopsizing what he says; Go.

(read the link to the article about Richard Perle's manifesto "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror" -- fucking amazing)

Glenn Reynolds is a evil person 

This is what Glenn Reynolds, the ignorant "law professor" with an asshole for an opinion, has to say about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:

"THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT TRY to play a "neutral arbiter" in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. We should, in fact, be doing our best to make the Palestinians suffer, because, to put it bluntly, they are our enemies."

Just a question here: Could anyone in academia get away with saying similar things about Israel (make them suffer) without being booted? I doubt it.

Cheney To Be Indicted In France For Bribes 

Thought this was interesting and I hadn't seen this anywhere else:
According to accounts in the French press, Judge van Ruymbeke believes that some or all of $180 million in so-called secret "retrocommissions" paid by Halliburton and Technip were, in fact, bribes given to Nigerian officials and others to grease the wheels for the refinery's construction.


The suspected bribe money was mostly ladled out between 1995 and 2000, when Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. The Journal du Dimanche reported on December 21 that "it is probable that some of the 'retrocommissions' found their way back to the United States" and asked, did this money go "to Halliburton's officials? To officials of the Republican Party?" These questions have so far gone unasked by America's media, which have completely ignored the explosive Le Figaro headline revealing the targeting of Cheney. It will be interesting to see if the US press looks seriously into this ticking time-bomb of a scandal before the November elections.

Friday, December 26, 2003

Hope you got something better than this Bubba 

"President Bush's campaign has settled on a plan to run against Howard Dean that would portray him as reckless, angry and pessimistic, while framing the 2004 election as a referendum on the direction of the nation more than on the president himself, Mr. Bush's aides say."

I don't think this is Bushies real plan. But, I hope it is considering the fact that around 50% of Americans feel we're heading in the wrong direction!

Thursday, December 25, 2003

Chomsky on Saddam's Capture 

Praise for Saddam's capture, then he points out the obvious about the so called "Bush Doctrine":

Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam.

With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally - a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff."

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes.

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

A truly enlightening read. Check it out.

Rush loses motion to block access to his medical records 

No real surprise, Roy Black's privacy argument was tossed aside by the judge.

I've said this before, but I think it needs saying again. Liberals/Democrats need to tread easy on this situation. Otherwise we're no better than the idiots on the other side. The drug war is wrong. No one, not even the little fat boy with a big mouth, should be subjected to this bullshit. Leave Rush Alone!

Atrios and others are way off base. They're faulting Limbaugh for not "cooperating" with prosecutors. That is completely ridiculous. Only a complete moron would "cooperate" with the guy trying to make his political carreer off of you (that's what prosecutors do folks).

I say, support Limbaugh. This is a great opportunity to coopt Limbaugh on the issue of injustice in the criminal justice system for DEFENDANTS (instead of the oft-repeated bullshit about criminals getting off easy).

Merry Christmas 

After serving 18 years, an innocent man walked out of prison in North Carolina yesterday. Merry Christmas Mr. Hunt.

Sorry that two juries found you guilty despite the fact that you were innocent. Sorry about that 18 years you spent in prison for something you didn't do. Sorry you were denied a new trial despite DNA evidence excluding you. Whoops!

Wednesday, December 24, 2003

WMD's were already found, remember? 

I didn't have much to do during the second semester of my third year of law school. Consequently, I had a lot of time to pay attention to the media war on television. I remember specifically seeing these breaking news stories about how we had found WMD's -- big huge letters and lots of exclamation points. Yet, when the discoveries didn't pan out, the story was never corrected.

I remember seeing a poll in approximately June. It said somewhere over 50% of Americans believed that WMD's had been found. Not surprising, considering the manner of coverage. FAIR does a great job pulling all the headlines from out of the memory hole. Take a walk down memory hole lane.


Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Rest In Peace Lenny 

I'm all for this. The first post-humous pardon in the history of the state of New York goes to none other than Lenny Bruce.

If you don't know who Lenny Bruce is, check into it. This guy was hounded by law enforcement in this country because he dared to use curse words on stage! (Here's a great 1964 Newsweek article about the New York trial. Here's a letter written by Lenny begging his former lawyer to represent him in subsequent trials.)

Law enforcement literally drove Lenny Bruce to his death. The Lenny Bruce story is a sad commentary on the supposed "free" society in which we live. The pardon helps clease these sins of the past, but more should be done. How about an apology from the FBI for what they did?

Rush Limbaugh update 

I posted a few weeks ago that Rush would not likely serve any time -- as long as the case stays in state court (as opposed to federal court). Looks like Rush's lawyer, Roy Black, agrees.

Monday, December 22, 2003

Newsweek's Propaganda Getting Hit Some More 

Check out this excellent article about the Newsweek "Lawsuit Hell" article. This guy quotes some additional research that found out that pretty much the entire story is complete bullshit.

He even goes back to Newsweek's article on the same topic one year ago (also complete bullshit).

If I didn't know better I'd think people were trying to convince the American public to sign away their right to sue.....Naw, that can't be it.

Saturday, December 20, 2003

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows 

THIS is an absolute, absolute, must read if you care at all about international relations or national politics.

Read it, then read the comments below.

The neo-con strategy (of scaring the shit out of weaker non-friendlies) is working. Col. Mohammar el-Quaddafi allegedly initiated the talks with the US as the Iraq war was starting (9 months ago). He's going to give us the goods and turn state's evidence against North Korea for supplying him with the raw materials to make illegal weapons. Now, we're holding Quaddafi as an example to be followed! "He's okay now, he's turned over a new leaf (reminds me of informant testimony in court). Basically, we're allowing him into the fold to achieve two things (i) to get more evidence against North Korea's program, and (ii) to prove that the Iraq invasion has made the country safer.

Say what you want about goal (i), but goal (ii) is undoubtedly political in nature.

We invaded Iraq (or was it Eurasia) because we said they had bad weapons. They didn't. Whoops. Nevertheless, we have since argued that it made Oceania safer because it got rid of bad man. So, the Iraq invasion made us "safer" NOT because we got the bad weapons we said we were going in to get, but because we got a bad guy (an alleged suporter of international terrorism -- an allegation with very little evidence by the way). Whereas, in this Libya situation, we're "safer" because we're getting rid of bad weapons, yet in doing so, we're endorsing a PROVEN supporter of international terrorism (Pan Am flight #103).

In the end, the "safer" business is all horse manure. The clear goal in relaeasing this information about Libya (notice how Bush himself was the one to release it, even though the negotiations have been ongoing for 9 months) is the buttress the administration's argument that the invasion of Iraq has made us "safer" by scaring the shit out of middle east dictators and forcing them to comply with our demands.

So, I'll say it again; politics makes for strange bedfellows indeed.

Thursday, December 18, 2003

What's the soup du jour?  

"It's the soup of the day."

"Mmmmm, that sounds good. I'll have that."

A few weeks ago, I posted about the Texas Department of Corrections "last meal request" website. Some of you thought it was sick.

Somebody agreed with you. They pulled it.

Damn liberals.

"Foreigners" beaten by federal prison guards in post-9/11 show of patriotism, shirt 

This is no surprise. What can you expect from morons?

Yet, to actually (1) own a t-shirt that says "These colors don't run", and (2) push a prisoners face into it to make a point is truly disturbing.

Check it out

More here.

When the Left hand forgets what the Right hand has done 

Not surprisingly, the most recently hailed "connection" between Iraq and 9/11 is complete horseshit (see William Saffire NYTimes). Further, somebody bought it, and forged it. Hmmmm....who would do such a thing?

"U.S. officials and a leading Iraqi document expert tell NEWSWEEK that the document is most likely a forgery—part of a thriving new trade in dubious Iraqi documents that has cropped up in the wake of the collapse of Saddam's regime."

"It's a lucrative business," says Hassan Mneimneh, codirector of an Iraqi exile research group reviewing millions of captured Iraqi government documents. "There's an active document trade taking place … You have fraudulent documents that are being fabricated and sold" for hundreds of dollars a piece."

William Saffire isn't even pretending to be a journalist anymore. The Times needs to let him out to pasture.

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

Make your Christmas donations to people who need them! 

This cause of action via Atrios.

I just made my $25 donation. May I humbly suggest that you do the same.

You see, your tax dollars aren't enough to give shampoo and toothpaste to our soldiers (who we continue to use like Charmin). That money goes to Dick Cheney's company. Therefore, please make a small donation and give a soldier some basic toiletries.

LAWSUITS and tigers and bears, oh my! 

I was at the Pennsylvania Train Station looking at magazines when I caught a glimpse of Newsweek's cover story: "Lawsuit Hell." I was elated! I knew it would make for great humorous read on my long train ride. So much so that I almost bought a copy. Then I thought, no fucking way am I going to increase their sales for this drivel. So, I went home and looked it up on Lexis. Needless to say it is complete bullshit.

The American Trial Lawyers Association has published some facts about the horseshit the author was shoveling (and if you wish to avoid falling victim yet another of corporate America's finely crafted "public opinions" you'll take a look).

Here's my personal favorite:
"Take the case of the group of fifth graders who were shooting hoops on the school playground one morning. The kids were breaking the rules - students aren't allowed to play on school property without adult supervisors. But when one of the boys broke his arm, his mother, who had no insurance, sued the school and the parents of all her son's playmates. She argued that her son deserved compensation because his injury meant he wouldn't be able to play baseball that summer." (p. 50) --> IN FACT --> "Newsweek claims that the mother sued the school, but there is no record of any cases filed against the elementary school listed in the article. An interesting note, however, is that an Internet search on Joseph Pizza, the principal of the school, found that the Citizens for a Sound Economy website highlights his removal of the monkey bars and metal swings from the school playground. CSE is an advocacy group for the corporate tort "reform" lobby under the guise of a grassroots, citizens' campaign. CSE was founded by David Koch of Koch Industries, one of America's leading corporate polluters, and its most influential figure today is C. Boyden Gray, heir to the Reynolds tobacco fortune, and a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in Washington, DC."

This principal of the school, Joseph Pizza, also has a photo spread in the article with the caption "PHOTO: Taking Chances: Pizza put himself on the line, allowing fake swords in the school play."

The author of the article, Stuart Taylor, is a former partner at the same firm (Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in Washington, DC -- you guessed it, a huge corporate defense firm).

Newsweek won't print a retraction, but if you care you can hassle them here.

Why no trial in the Hague? 

Because 'ole Saddam might bring up unpleasantries like this.

Mock questioning (coverage by Fox News, as Americans watch their telescreens at work):
Prosecutor Rumsfeld: So, Mr. Hussein you admit that you used chemical weapons against your own people in 1988!
Hussein: Yes. You sold them to me Mr. Rumsfeld. Don't you remember? When you came to my place in 1983. And afterward I hosted the party at my palace. Surely you remember? Drinks, dancing, rape rooms? You gave me the weapons to fight Iran.
Prosecutor Rumsfeld: No sir, you have gone completely mad. The United States has never been at war with Iran, we've always been at war with Iraq.

Public Opinion Watch 

We invaded Iraq because Saddam didn't leave Iraq right? That's the party line floating around these days. As though we wouldn't have gone in had he left when GW told him to.

Here's something I fished out of the memory hole that flies in the face of that now prevalent public opinion.

"Even if Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq within 48 hours, as President Bush demanded, allied forces plan to move north into Iraqi territory, American officials said today....Even if [Hussein and his family left], allied forces would enter Iraq to search for hidden caches of weapons of mass destruction and help stabilize the nation so that a new and more democratic regime could take over.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power," President Bush said today, addressing the Iraqi military.

It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction." [from-- Michael Gordon, New York Times, March 18, 2003 (sorry, no link)]

GW's speech: "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing." (That is, unless, you don't leave, in which case we're coming in. In all cases, please don't burn the oil. Thanks.)

NOTE: Just an observation on how quickly "facts" become skewed. Nothing sinister here, so no psycho posts please.

Why does the US hate democracy? 

Interesting Chomsky article:

"Attitudes toward democracy were revealed with unusual clarity during the mobilization for war in the fall of 2002, as it became necessary to deal somehow with the overwhelming popular opposition....

In the two major European countries, Germany and France, the official government stands corresponded to the views of the large majority of their populations, which unequivocally opposed the war. That led to bitter condemnation by Washington and many commentators...

Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the offending nations as just the "Old Europe," of no concern because of their reluctance to toe Washington's line. The "New Europe" is symbolized by Italy, whose prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, was visiting the White House. It was, evidently, unproblematic that public opinion in Italy was overwhelmingly opposed to the war...

The governments of Old and New Europe were distinguished by a simple criterion: a government joined Old Europe in its iniquity if and only if it took the same position as the vast majority of its population and refused to follow orders from Washington...

Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country."

So, just in case you missed it. New Europe = Subjecting a majority of your population to a war they overwhelmingly saw as unjust. Old Eurpope = Listening to the people.

Tuesday, December 16, 2003

Lies, damn lies, and convictions 

Put this is the prosecutorial misconduct file (I'm reminded of Eddie Murphy's "Raw", "here Johnny I made $70 at the boutique on the weekend, just put that with the rest. Now we have $300 million, and $70 dollars.")

Here's the gist: Prosecutor's lied to the defense attorneys for Alberto Ramos and withheld exculpatory evidence in order to "win" their convictions. Ramos, a mere 22 years old, was sentenced to 25 years. While the prosecutor was at home on her faux-leather couch eating cottage cheese Mr. Ramos being beaten and raped by other inmates. I wonder if she ever apologized?

Some excerpts:

"In 1985, Mr. Ramos, then 22, was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He appealed the decision several times but his appeals were rejected."


...while in prison he endured beatings, was sodomized and tried to commit suicide several times."

Wait a second! I thought all "criminals" did was watch their fancy tv's with 500 plus channels, eating filet mignon and drinking Dom Perignon.

He sued the city, and surprisingly was able to collect $5mill. Of course, that doesn' t even come close to fully compensating him, but you know we don't want to create incentives for people to get convicted, raped and beaten just so they can win the litigation lottery.

Here's the full link, if you care.

Still going 

Lest we forget while reveling in our victory -- Americans are still dying.

Sunday, December 14, 2003

Joe Lieberman is no Democrat 

Look at why the Senator is opposed to trying Saddam in the Hague.

This idiot has the audacity to run on the Democratic ticket? Unbelievable.

The lies that bind....Delma Banks to a gurney 

Here's a quick recap of what has been going on in the case of Delma Banks, Jr.

Delma has been on the Texas death row for 24 years. Most recently, he was actually strapped to the gurney, before the US Supreme Court stepped in to grant a stay. Banks had actually been granted relief via a habeas petition (found his conviction was in violation of the Constitution), then the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court's order. Banks went to the gallows. Then the big court stepped in and granted a stay.

What were they so concerned about? More of the same, withheld evidence, lies from lead prosecution witnesses (prosecutor knowingly elicited perjured testimony). For those familiar with the system, this isn't any huge revelation. Prosecutors routinely withhold, and even bury, evidence that might cut against conviction. That's not what gets me really pissed. You lied, you got caught. Now pay the punishment (personal responsibility -- like they always preach).

What is truly infuriating is that the government lawyers then have the gall to argue on appeal that the lies were "harmless". The idea is, that those little bitty 'ole lies wouldn't have made any difference to the verdict because the guy is guilty.

Here's how I would deal with the "harmless error" claim at oral arguments if I were the judge:
ME: How can we, 24 years later, superimpose ourselves in that courtroom and say that this man would have been found guilty?
Idiot Prosecutor: Because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and the jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
ME: But the jury made that conclusion based on the evidence it was presented with. That evidence consisted of perjured testimony by two of the prosecution's main witnesses. They may not have come out the same way if they had had that evidence. It is impossible for us to tell 24 years later by looking at a printed trial transcript. Further, it is not an appellate court's job to perform a jury's fact-finding function. Idiot Prosecutor: Trust me, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. The evidence was overwhelming. He was guilty.
ME: If it wouldn't have mattered then why didn't the prosecuting attorney reveal the fact that the witness was lying? I just don't see how we can say that it would not have made a difference that the prosecution lied and knowingly allowed perjured testimony in order to get a conviction.
Idiot Prosecutor: Trust me, he was guilty. It wouldn't have mattered.
ME: Trust YOU!!!! You've already admitted that your office lied to this jury in order to win this trial. Trust you? Fuck you.

The oral arguments in the Supreme Court were not quite as colorful as my mock oral argument above. Here's what the chief Texas attorney general argued:

"During Monday's arguments, the state's lawyer, Gena A. Bunn, chief of the Texas attorney general's capital litigation division, acknowledged errors in the prosecution's handling of the case but said they were not "material," because, she maintained, they would not have led to a different verdict had they been known to the jury. In any event, she said, the Banks defense team failed to uncover and present evidence of those errors in a timely manner. "There was an obligation for them to pursue their claims further," she said."

Basically, our laywers solicitation of perjury would not have mattered because the guy was guilty, and even if our lies would have mattered to the jury, the defense lawyers should have found out about us lying earlier. They were too late, so we should just go ahead and kill the guy.

Read the article here.

Doesn't this piss anyone else off?

Monday, December 08, 2003

Tax Cuts Caused Definitely Caused The Current Economic "Boom" 

But the problem is, you and your children paid for it.

If I took 10 billion dollars from American taxpayers and put it directly into the manufacturing sector (the only area real of "growth") to buy machines and other tangible goods --> that would cause a "boom" in manufacturing! That is what has happened. There is no debate about it.

The issue is, is it okay to take taxpayer's money to put into these sectors? The tax cuts that have caused the most recent boom are, I believe, Section's 168(k) and 179(a)(4).

Section 168(k) allows business taxpayers an immediate depreciation allowance for any tangible goods (ie...tractor, machine). The taxpayer can deduct 50% of the cost of the item (tractor) IF the good is placed in service (ie...bought new) AFTER 5/5/2003! [Pay $100,000 for a tractor, deduct $50,000 immediately). PLUS, the taxpayer can take additional depreciation deductions this year on the same tractor (around 40% of the amount remaining after the 50% is knocked off)! End result --> business didn't really "pay" for anything.

Section 179 allows a business to treat a purchase of certain goods (tangible or intangible, including our tractor) as a business "expense" in the year the business buys it. Essentially, the taxpayer can deduct the full cost of the good today as an "expense" [Pay $100,000 for tractor, deduct $100,000 immediately]. Bush's cuts pushed the amount up to 100,000 if the taxpayer buys the item AFTER 2003 (it was around 25,000 prior to the recent cuts).

Hmmmm.... The recent indicators have told us the summer was "really hot" in manufacturing. See, the tax cuts are "working" their magic. But who really paid for it? Not the businesses, because they got the money (effectively) from the taxpayers.

Judges who depart from guidelines are blacklisted 

For those of you who haven't been affected by Congress' recent, and even more draconian change in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines via the Feeney amendment to the "Amber Alert" Act, here's a short synopsis --> If a judge tries to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines when the prosecutor doesn't want him to. He is not allowed to, but realizing that judges can order whatever sentence they want (subject to reversal on appeal) the law also requires --> the prosecutor takes the judge's name down and reports it to the Attorney General (who keeps a list of these "rogue" judges and issues a report to Congress with the judge's names).

To be kind, this is complete facism and totally unAmerican. (to be read in best German accent) "Oh, your honor would like to shorten this criminal's sentence for possession of marijuana. You're going on the list!"

This spilled over in NY recently, and Justice Calabresi called a spade a spade:

"two months ago...a Manhattan federal appellate panel hearing a routine drug case, U.S. v. Jorge Santiago, took the opportunity to strongly criticize the Feeney amendment and the trend it represents.

"You're telling me that the system we have set up, that has been set up by Congress, which removes discretion from the judges, has given discretion to your office," Judge Guido Calabresi said to Robert M. Appleton, an assistant United States attorney prosecuting the case.

"This case is a perfect example," Judge Calabresi continued, "of you telling me that your office made some decisions with respect to what is right and just and true, and the District Court is thereby prohibited from having any say in the matter."

Before Mr. Appleton could respond, another panel member, Judge Roger J. Miner, said that if the panel did not follow the prosecution's sentencing recommendation, "you'll probably take our names and report them to the attorney general."

That prompted Justice Chester J. Straub to caution Mr. Appleton, "Be sure you spell them correctly."

"Especially Straub," Justice Calabresi said, triggering laughter in the courtroom. "S-T-R-A-U-B."

Friday, December 05, 2003

Photo-op watch continues 

More phony bullshit via Counterspin

Bush Speaks Out About LEWIS RANJA 

Wow! Even Bush realizes that Ranja (AKA J.Wilson) is way out in right field. Check it out!

Bush had more to say later on.

He even admitted a slight bias.

OK --> Caption contest --> GO

If there remains any doubt that the Thanksgiving trip was politically motivated.... 

Many of you have argued that the President's Thanksgiving trip was not politically motivated (despite the fact that he walked around posing for photos with a stage prop). I think most of you were having trouble seeing how such a nice gesture could be seen as politically advantageous (rather than just a good thing to do). Who could possibly be swayed to vote for this bumbling moron and his cast of criminals based on distribution of turkey?

I argued that it was political, because people (of a different leaing/mindset) could be strongly swayed by Bush's trip (if properly presented by the Bushies -- eg...good photo ops). You know, like when they put those highly persuasive backdrops up when he speaks.

Here's the proof:

Reader "Liam" posted in the comments that...."When I first read about this the day that it happened, it truly brought a tear to my eye. I do not care what some new paper has to say about this...Too me this is probably the greatest moment of Bush's administration. It shows that he has what it takes to be a military LEADER and as the Commander in Chief that is what he is."

When viewed through Liam's eyes --> this trip was the greatest moment of Bush's administration. Think about that. To Liam, (and others similarly situated) this "not politically motivated" trip (complete with phony photo-ops) might make the difference in who to vote for in 2004. Still think it is insignificant? Still think I'm wasting my time? Move on to other more important things?

People like Liam ("Nascar dads") overwhelmingly voted for Bush in 2000. If this event is any indication, they'll do it again in 2004. How else to sway these particular voters but by poking holes in these photo ops that these voters think are so significant?

Back to Liam --> No offense, but he's clearly a ring-wing nut. I was enjoying his comment, and took him to be a politically neutral guy, until he launched into an attack against the most predictable of conservative targets --> Hillary.

Liam wrote:
"What about Hillary's trip? You have said nothing of that. She actually goes over there and tells the troops and our enemies that the American people are not sure if we are going to win. People are over there fucking dieing and she says that we may not win. Based on what she is saying all those deaths that you keep pointing out could be for not." First of all, I'm not sure she really did that. Liam cites as support an op-ed piece from "ChronWatch" [read it if you need a good laugh] (ChronWatch site manager says he started the blog in order to combat liberal bias in his local paper that "recently...has turned into a stifling, total domination...[leaving him feeling] insulted and violated.") Very evenhanded.

Did Hillary really do/say what Liam says she did? Of course not. According to the AP(via NYtimes):
Clinton said, "I wanted to come to Iraq to let the troops know about the great job they're doing," she said, according to a pool report by The Associated Press. "There's a lot to be proud of, particularly on the ground, with our troops."

Another note: "During his two-and-a-half-hour visit on Thursday, Mr. Bush stayed inside the heavily fortified airport complex. Mrs. Clinton, a Democrat from New York, ventured outside the complex on her trip here with Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island. She said they came mostly to see the troops, after stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they met with American soldiers and leaders of those nations." I haven't heard much about how "brave" she was for actually leaving the tent.

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

Photo-op watch continues... 

Not surprisingly, this photo was also part of the propaganda campaign.

via Drudge

Now via Washington Post.

Can't you just see him stroling around inside that big tent with that spread like Nick the Dick from Bachelor Party; shit-eating grin on his phony face. Smiling in the faces of men he could care less about (unless they can further his political agenda). Men whose lives he was willing to wager in order to implement some plan for a new world order cooked up by a gang of elitist megalomaniacs. Assface.

Comment section below is for morons to explain to me how it was simply a harmless "mistake" and he never planned to be photographed, blah, blah, blah.

Tuesday, December 02, 2003

Update on Dan Barlett lie 

Check it out via Guardian UK


UPDATE: Just as prognosticated (in comments to this post) even the second version (again provided by Dan Bartlett) is complete bullshit.

Here's a taste.....
"British Airways said it has been unable to confirm the new version. "We've looked into it," a spokeswoman said from London. "It didn't happen."

These idiots don't even bother covering up a bullshit story with half-truths. They just keep on lying.

Why do I "hate" America? 

After being accused of "hating" America by blogger Jlind (see comments in post below) I decided it was time to post this cartoon in response. It's one of my all time favorites from Tom Tomorrow at This Modern World. Enjoy!

Monday, December 01, 2003

More on the Bullshit Trip to Baghdad -- Oh he sooooo brave..... 

More bullshit is going to continue to spill forth about that bullshit trip to Baghdad

Here's the propaganda we were originally fed by White House communications director Dan Bartlett:

"Air traffic controllers in Baghdad did not know the plane heading for the runway was Air Force One, and it then landed without its lights in darkness, but for a sliver of moon. [i'm getting all misty eyed thinking of that brave bastard in the lonely Iraqi sky]

On the flight over, Air Force One had come within sight of a British Airways plane, Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, told reporters on the trip, according to the transcript.

The British Airways pilot radioed over and asked, Mr. Bartlett said, "Did I just see Air Force One?" [in other words....Superman?] There was silence from the Air Force One pilot, who then replied, "Gulfstream 5." [ha ha ha, we lied to those silly brits]

There was a longer silence from the British Airways pilot, Mr. Bartlett said, who, seeming to get that he was in on a secret, then said, "Oh." "

In reality, this is what happened. Nothing.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?