Thursday, November 30, 2006

Noble Americans

Iran's President Criticizes Bush in Letter to American People

"What have the Zionists done for the American people that the U.S. administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors?" Mr. Ahmadinejad wrote. "Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?"

There is a link to President Ahmadinejad on the side bar > read from his sight for yourself. I have had it listed sense I began to read about him. As Bush refuses to talk to anyone it seems, maybe the American people need to talk for ourselves as we have the ability too. I hope the rude, crude idiolects of americana stay out of the mix (your still welcome to comment here if you need to blow your steam). But I got to admit, the more we learn the more clearly we see the struggles of peoples just wanting basic human rights, and peace.

OH, Colorado you done good. Peace signs for everybody, ha. The twisted fools all ran and hide, no one believes a peace sign is a symbol of the devil anymore. That was nixed with Nixon, way back when. Bout time those mid-western hicks woke up, yah they are hicks in Colorado. Hell it is more hickey than Appalachia, some places ;)

Labels: , ,

0 comments links to this post

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Vidal Words

"I'm now a creationist.  Because the distance from George Washington to George W. Bush makes a monkey out of Darwin."  Gore Vidal (truthdig)

 

Dave Scott admits intersex theory for the 'virgin birth' of Jesus, pz's side as always.

 

lots more but that is enough to increase the friction around the thanksgiving tables everywhere

 

Wonderful peaceful holidays all

Labels: , ,

0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

The moral of the story

We don’t lynch people in America anymore, why should we allow it to happen in a country where we occupy and support the government. Lynching to death is not an acceptable penalty for any crime, and offers justice to no one. Besides the Accomplices have to be held accountable now, and would we allow for our former president George H Bush to be lynched. It only endorses lies to leave him unaccountable, and others.



ZNet Commentary
Let's now charge the accomplices November 10, 2006
By John Pilger

In a show trial whose theatrical climax was clearly timed to promote George W Bush in the American midterm elections, Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced to hang. Drivel about "end of an era" and "a new start for Iraq" was promoted by the usual false moral accountants, who uttered not a word about bringing the tyrant's accomplices to justice. Why are these accomplices not being charged with aiding and abetting crimes against humanity? Why isn't George Bush Snr being charged?

In 1992, a congressional inquiry found that Bush as president had ordered a cover-up to conceal his secret support for Saddam and the illegal arms shipments being sent to Iraq via third countries. Missile technology was shipped to South Africa and Chile, then "on sold" to Iraq, while US Commerce Department records were falsified.

Congressman Henry Gonzalez, chairman of the House of Representatives Banking Committee, said: "[We found that] Bush and his advisers financed, equipped and succoured the monster . . ." Why isn't Douglas Hurd being charged? In 1981, as Britain's Foreign Office minister, Hurd traveled to Baghdad to sell Saddam a British Aerospace missile system and to "celebrate" the anniversary of Saddam's blood-soaked ascent to power. Why isn't his former cabinet colleague, Tony Newton, being charged? As Thatcher's trade secretary, Newton, within a month of Saddam gassing 5,000 Kurds at Halabja (news of which the Foreign Office tried to suppress), offered the mass murderer £340m in export credits.

Why isn't Donald Rumsfeld being charged? In December 1983, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad to signal America's approval of Iraq's aggression against Iran. Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad on 24 March 1984, the day that the United Nations reported that Iraq had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent against Iranian soldiers. Rumsfeld said nothing. A subsequent Senate report documented the transfer of the ingredients of biological weapons from a company in Maryland, licensed by the Commerce Department and approved by the State Department.

Why isn't Madeleine Albright being charged? As President Clinton's secretary of state, Albright enforced an unrelenting embargo on Iraq which caused half a million "excess deaths" of children under the age of five. When asked on television if the children's deaths were a price worth paying, she replied: "We think the price is worth it."
Why isn't Peter Hain being charged? In 2001, as Foreign Office minister, Hain described as "gratuitous" the suggestion that he, along with other British politicians outspoken in their support of the deadly siege of Iraq, might find themselves summoned before the International Criminal Court. A report for the UN secretary general by a world authority on international law describes the embargo on Iraq in the 1990s as "unequivocally illegal under existing human rights law", a crime that "could raise questions under the Genocide Convention".

Indeed, two past heads of the UN humanitarian mission in Iraq, both of them assistant secretary generals, resigned because the embargo was indeed genocidal. As of July 2002, more than $5bn-worth of humanitarian supplies, approved by the UN Sanctions Committee and paid for by Iraq, were blocked by the Bush administration, backed by the Blair and Hain government. These included items related to food, health, water and sanitation.

Above all, why aren't Blair and Bush Jnr being charged with "the paramount war crime", to quote the judges at Nuremberg and, recently, the chief American prosecutor - that is, unprovoked aggression against a defenseless country?

And why aren't those who spread and amplified propaganda that led to such epic suffering being charged? The New York Times reported as fact fabrications fed to its reporter by Iraqi exiles. These gave credibility to the White House's lies, and doubtless helped soften up public opinion to support an invasion. Over here, the BBC all but celebrated the invasion with its man in Downing Street congratulating Blair on being "conclusively right" on his assertion that he and Bush "would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath". The invasion, it is reliably estimated, has caused 655,000 "excess deaths", overwhelmingly civilians.

If none of these important people are called to account, there is clearly only justice for the victims of accredited "monsters".

Is that real or fake justice?

Fake




Fake, fables akin to lies. America needs to cut the bush at the root, and we came close on the elections. When the committees turn up the heat on all the corruption of this war and the lies to the nation, we may see another fake justice, or a fable resembling justice it will not be _A_lynching.

Labels: , ,

0 comments links to this post

Friday, November 10, 2006

Iraqi Official: 150,000 Civilians Dead - Forbes.com

A stunning new death count emerged Thursday, as Iraq's health minister estimated at least 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war - about three times previously accepted estimates.
The Secret World of Robert Gates
Robert Gates, George W. Bush’s choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, is a trusted figure within the Bush Family’s inner circle, but there are lingering questions about whether Gates is a trustworthy public official.
No cronies left behindw
AP: Startling findings in Tillman probe

Labels: , , ,

0 comments links to this post