Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[cowboyangel]

If it's budget time, it must be disinformation time. That's how it goes in the Bush II era. George W. Bush released a budget today that he claims is responsible, honest, and designed to cut the $400 billion-plus deficit in half by 2009. Not so. By now, you probably have heard the obvious criticisms. The budget does not include the $80 billion Bush is asking for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And that probably won't cover the full tab.) It doesn't account for the $1 trillion to $2 trillion that Bush needs to pay for the private investment accounts he wants to carve out of Social Security. It also doesn't recognize that several hundred billion dollars will disappear from the revenue stream when the government rejiggers the alternative minimum tax--which it must--to prevent this tax (written to apply to corporations that make creative use of loopholes) from hitting middle-class individual tax filers.

There are few secrets about Bush's budgetary shenanigans. While the military gets a hefty boost, housing, education and environmental protection gets hammered. Every advocacy group concerned with federal spending was issuing press releases today. Folks on Capitol Hill were doing the same. Senator Jim Jeffords, the Republican-turned-independent from Vermont, put out a short list of the worst of Bush's proposed cuts. Here it is:

* Environment. Cuts the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget by 5.6 percent from $8.02 billion to $7.57 billion, culminating in an almost 10 percent cut over two years. Most cuts come in efforts to maintain and improve the nation's clean water infrastructure.

* Veterans. More than doubles the co-payment charged to many veterans for prescription drugs and would require some to pay a new fee of $250 a year for the privilege of using the Veterans health care system.

* Health Care. Cuts Medicaid funding by $45 billion over 10 years and eliminates 28 health programs, totaling $1.36 billion. These programs range from rural hospital grants (cuts $39.5 million) to emergency medical services for children (cuts $20 million).

* Job Training. Cuts federal spending on job training by a half-billion dollars. Federal job training programs, including dislocated-worker training, will be cut by $200 million. Federal aid to states for job training, including funding to train veterans, will be cut by $300 million.

* Amtrak. Eliminates all funding for Amtrak, calling bankruptcy proceedings as the solution for our nation's rail system.

* Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP). Cuts LIHEAP by over 8 percent, from $2.2 billion to $2 billion.

* Parks. Cuts the National Park Service by 3 percent from $2.31 billion to $2.24 billion.

The Bush White House defends its cuts, claiming it is targeting programs that don't work. Could it be that the Bushies are right? That those darn bureaucrats running the clean water programs at the EPA are flushing taxpayer dollars down the drain? Perhaps. But here's the thing: if Bush is not being honest about the macro dimensions of his budget--and he's not--then how can he be trusted on the details? Short answer: he cannot. I am willing to believe waste and unnecessary spending can be found throughout government. Maybe even at the Pentagon. (Gosh, no!) But I am not willing to hand the scalpel to Bush and his lieutenants when they spin numbers and refuse to acknowledge the true budgetary problems that they have caused and overseen.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Mark Crispin Miller's dissemination of mud, Bush's delusions about gay families, and more

*******

For a (relatively) easy-to-follow analysis of Bush's budget proposal, I turn to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Yeah, they're a bunch of liberals over there. But they know their math. Here are some excerpts from the center's first review of Bush's budget:

The Priorities of the Budget

The budget makes very substantial cuts in domestic spending at the same time that it calls for large additional tax cuts. If defense, homeland security, and international affairs are funded at the levels the President proposes, then by 2010, funding for domestic discretionary programs (outside homeland security) would have to be cut about $65 billion, or 16 percent, below the 2005 levels, adjusted for inflation. These cuts hit program...such as education, veterans' health care, and environmental protection....

The budget proposes tax cuts costing $1.6 trillion over 10 years (including interest), even though the paucity of revenues is the main reason behind the rise in the deficit. Revenues are now lower, as a share of the economy, than in any year in the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, or the 1990s. Yet the Administration's budget would make its tax cuts permanent and add a number of new tax cuts on top. It proposes, for example, a series of new tax cuts related to savings that, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, would go overwhelmingly to those with incomes above $100,000....The Congressional Research Service has estimated that these new tax cuts eventually cost the equivalent today of $300 billion to $500 billion over ten years.

Key low-income programs would be hit even though these programs have contributed little to the return of the deficit, and since 2000, poverty has risen and the number of Americans without health insurance has climbed. The number of poor went up for the third straight year in 2003, the share of total income that goes to the bottom two-fifths of households has fallen to one of its lowest levels since the end of World War II, and the number of people lacking health insurance rose to 45 million in 2003, the highest level on record. Yet the budget proposes food stamp cuts that will eliminate benefits for 200,000 to 300,000 people primarily in low-income working families and a five-year freeze on child care funding that, according to tables in the Administration's budget, will result in cutting the number of low-income children receiving child care assistance by 300,000 in 2009. The budget also proposes to reduce Medicaid funding by at least $45 billion over 10 years; such a proposal would almost certainly push hard-pressed states to eliminate coverage for a substantial number of low-income people, increasing the ranks of the uninsured and the underinsured.

Effects on the Deficit

Despite cuts to scores of domestic programs, the Administration's budget increases rather than decreases the deficit over the next five years. As shown by its own figures, the effect of the Administration's budget is to increase total deficits over the next five years from $1.364 trillion under current law to $1.393 trillion. A main reason for this outcome is the tax-cut proposals the Administration has included in its budget.

Over the longer run, by proposing to make its tax cuts permanent, the Administration's budget proposals would dramatically swell the deficit. In 2015 alone, the Administration's tax proposals -- including the cost of making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent -- would increase the deficit by $358 billion. If relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax that is due to expire at the end of this year is extended, as is widely expected, this would add another $163 billion to the deficit in 2009. The Administrations proposal to replace part of Social Security with private accounts also would swell deficits further. It would add $1.4 trillion to deficits in its first ten years (2019 to 2028) and another $3.5 trillion in the decade after that. In 2015 alone, it would add $177 billion.

**********

By the way, the Center also notes that for the first time since 1989 this budget "fails to provide information about the funding of specific discretionary programs beyond the upcoming budget year, thereby hiding the impact of the large discretionary cuts it is proposing." That is, the Bush White House is hiding the greater hits to come to education, veterans' health care, and many other programs after 2009. The White House, according to the Center, also "insists on its practice of budgeting for only five years, masking the full cost of its tax cuts, while it simultaneously insists on using 'infinite' or 75-year time horizons" when discussing such programs as Social Security. How convenient.

Bush is not playing it straight on the big numbers. He never has. So the dramatic budget cuts he now proposes cannot be accepted as a good-faith fix for the mess that he helped create.

*******************

IT REMAINS RELEVANT, ALAS. SO DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research.... t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer.... Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.... Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, "I'd like to tell you I've read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that'd be a lie."

For more information and a sample, go to www.davidcorn.com. And see his WEBLOG there

[DVD Burner]

sorry DV, Ward's a crackpot.

So um....


what makes Ward a crack pot?



Oh and awesome how Bush is doing some justice to the vets huh?

[cowboyangel]

The Right has a License to Write Anything
Ward Churchill and the Mad Dogs

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

When it comes to left and right, meaning the respective voices of sanity and dementia, we're meant to keep two sets of books.

Start with sanity, in the form of Ward Churchill, a tenured prof at the University of Colorado. Churchill is known nationally as a fiery historian and writer, particularly on Indian matters. Back in 2001, after 9/11, Churchill wrote an essay called "Some People Push Back", making the simple point, in his words, that "if U.S. foreign policy results in widespread death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned."

That piece was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. On the matter of those killed in the 9/11 attacks, Churchill wrote recently, "It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad 1991 this placement of an element of the American 'command and control infrastructure' in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a 'legitimate' target."

At this point Churchill could have specifically mentioned the infamous bombing of the Amariya civilian shelter in Baghdad in January, 1991, with 400 deaths, almost all women and children, all subsequently identified and named by the Iraqis. To this day the US government says it was an OK target.

Churchill concludes, "If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these 'standards' when they are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them._ It should be emphasized that I applied the 'little Eichmanns' characterization only to those [World Trade Center workers] described as 'technicians.' Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, [they] were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else." I'm glad he puts that gloss in about the targets of his characterization, thus clarifying what did read like a blanket stigmatization of the WTC inhabitants in his original paper.

A storm has burst over Churchill's head, with protests by Governor Pataki and others at his scheduled participation on a panel at Hamilton College called "Limits of Dissent." In Colorado he's resigned his chairmanship of the department of ethnic studies, and politicians, fired up by the mad dogs on the Wall Street Journal editorial page and by Lord O'Reilly of the Loofah on Fox, are howling for his eviction from his job.

Why should Churchill apologize for anything? Is it a crime to say that chickens can come home to roost and that the way to protect American lives from terrorism is to respect international law? I don't think he should have resigned as department chair. Let them drag him out by main force.

So much for the voice of sanity. Now for the dementia of the right. The New Republic's Tom Frank (not the Frank, please note, who just wrote a book about Kansas) describes in TNR how he recently sat in on an antiwar panel in Washington.

Frank listened to Stan Goff, a former Delta Force soldier and current organizer for Military Families Speak Out, whose speech duly moved Frank to write that "what I needed was a Republican like Arnold [Schwarzenegger] who would walk up to [Goff] and punch him in the face."

Then upon Frank's outraged ears fell the views of International Socialist Review editorial board member Sherry Wolf, who asserted that Iraqis had a "right" to rebel against occupation, prompting TNR's man to confide to his readers that "these weren't harmless lefties. I didn't want Nancy Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation."

After Wolf quoted Booker Prize-winning author Arundhati Roy's defense of the right to resist, Frank confided to The New Republic's readers, "Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy."

Now suppose Churchill had talked about Schwarzenegger's war on the poor in California and called on someone to punch the guv in the face, or have a jovial Graner force Pataki to masturbate what remain of Schwarzenegger's steroid-shriveled genitals, or have Ann Coulter rub her knickers in his face or get blown up by a bomb? He'd be out of his job in a minute.

Right-wing mad dogs are licensed to write anything, and in our Coulter-culture they do, just so they can burnish their profiles and get invited on Fox talk shows. Why else would Tony Blankley call on the Washington Times editorial page for Hersh to be imprisoned or shot for treason? But it's a PR game only right-wingers are allowed to play.

After savaging Churchill, the mad dogs of the right are now turning their sights on Shahid Alam, a tenured professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston. Alam, author of the excellent Poverty From the Wealth of Nations, wrote a column for the CounterPunch website in December in which he argued that the 9/11 attacks were an Islamist insurgency, the attackers believing that they are fighting-as the American revolutionaries did, in the 1770s-for their freedom and dignity against foreign occupation/control of their lands. Second, he argued that these attacks were the result of the political failure of Muslims to resist their tyrannies locally.

It was a mistake, Alam said, to attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Now he has been labeled "an un-American" professor by O'Reilly and Daniel Pipes, and there's an Internet campaign to have him stripped of his faculty position. So write to all the appropriate names, defending Churchill and Alam; and if you feel like a pleasant outing to execrate Frank and The New Republic, there'll be a demonstration sponsored by the DC Anti-War Network, the DC chapter of the ISO and others at 5 pm on Friday, February 11, outside TNR's DC editorial offices at 1331 H Street.

Afterword: Latest word from Colorado since this column went to press last Wednesday in the print edition of The Nation, is that the university's Inquisition team has taken time out, for a month, so that they can read everything Ward Churchill has ever written. A month? That's like saying you need only a year to read the works of Alexander Dumas, which would mean reading a couple of novels a day. This job will take those UC officials a lot longer than that. Ward is a very prolific guy and he's been at it for many years. And, yes, this is the same University of Colorado whose officials decided last year to take no firm disciplinary action after Katie Hnida and two other women charged they had been raped or assaulted by members of the UC football team, also that Coach Gary Barnett's staff had staged porno movie showings for potential team recruits, also promising them easy sex if they signed on. Once again, two sets of books. For rapists and procurers a wink and a nod;for political commentary, a full press persecution and threats of termination. Hnida told Katie Couric a few days ago that her lawyers are actively pursuing legal sanctions.

Well DVD, this bears a second look. I fell into the mainstream media trap on this one , if you can believe Cockburn. I've met Cockburn, and except for leering over my wife, he's a great guy and truly honest

[DVD Burner]

Click the picture to really get the picture.

It's just common knowledge.

[Wind_Borne]

I guess that image just proves that having access to Photoshop does not imply any understanding perspective or light-play.

[DVD Burner]

Yeah the pic is kinda photoshoped but the story is true.

[DVD Burner]

http://2fwww.toostupidtobepresident.com ... artrek.htm

[Simply Joel]

Yeah the pic is kinda photoshoped but the story is true.

the above logic would have qualified you to work at CBS News, pre-memo-gate.

[DVD Burner]

Yeah the pic is kinda photoshoped but the story is true.

the above logic would have qualified you to work at CBS News, pre-memo-gate.

Oh,

Yeah yeah yeah, I forgot. Joel likes reputable newspapers.

So Joel, would you prefer this info come from something like the Washington post or the San Francisco Chronicle?


A little education for those that do not know:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 222557.DTL
Critics Knock Naming Oil Tanker Condoleezza
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Thursday, April 5, 2001


The White House, already criticized for its connections to Big Oil, now is facing renewed questions over Chevron's decision to name an oil tanker for national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The double-hulled giant, Condoleezza Rice, is part of the international tanker fleet of the San Francisco-based multinational oil firm, named several years ago in honor of Rice when she was a Chevron board member and stockholder.

Rice, the former Stanford University provost, served on Chevron's board from 1991 until Jan. 15, when she resigned after President Bush named her to the national security post.

But with California's energy crisis intensifying and human rights groups spotlighting abuses in countries where Chevron does business, critics say the tanker now poses serious diplomatic and ethical issues for Rice and the administration.

Even more sensitive, they say, is the appearance of a far too cozy relationship among multinational energy giants, Bush and his key advisers -- including Vice President Dick Cheney and Rice.

"It does underscore that there's never been an administration in power in this country that has been so close to a single industry -- in this instance, the oil-and-gas industry," said Chuck Lewis, who heads the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, which first raised the issue of the tanker's moniker last month. "Look at the president and his background, the vice president (who is a former executive at Halliburton), (Commerce Secretary) Don Evans and his oil interests . . . and now this."

Rice is a respected diplomat, but "I don't think anyone recognized the extent of her closeness to a major oil company," Lewis said. "It's not every day that someone has an oil tanker named after her."

At a White House press conference this week, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan was asked if Bush should specifically request the Condoleezza Rice tanker be given a name change -- particularly since Chevron does business on six continents and 25 countries, and has been sued for alleged human rights abuses in Nigeria.

Last year, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, charging Chevron aided Nigerian police in attacks on local communities protesting Chevron production activities. A company spokesman yesterday, however, said the incident involved 200 youths armed with machetes, guns and knives who attempted to take over an offshore oil platform, holding workers for ransom and refusing to allow them access to medical treatment.

On Tuesday, the question about the tanker came up at the White House briefing in connection with the incident in Nigeria. McClellan, the administration spokesman, repeatedly said the issue of the tanker had "already been addressed" by Rice, and added, "she will uphold the highest ethical standards in office."

A Chevron spokeswoman said yesterday that the oil giant has no intention of renaming the Condoleezza Rice and noted that board member Carla Hills also had a Chevron tanker named in her honor before she was appointed former President George Bush's trade secretary -- and the vessel has kept the name.

"It's part of a long-standing practice of naming (tankers) after members of the board of directors," a company spokeswoman said, citing other big ships named George Shultz, David Packard and Kenneth T. Derr.

Rice's office did not return repeated phone calls yesterday, but she told Fox TV last year that she has no regrets regarding her Chevron ties.

"I'm very proud of my association with Chevron, and I think we should be very proud of the job American oil companies are doing in exploration abroad, in exploration at home, and in making certain we have a safe energy supply," she said.

Lewis notes that both Rice and the White House have promised that she will recuse herself from any decisions directly involving Chevron.

"The problem is Chevron operates in dozens of countries all over the world, " he said. "She (is) going to be dealing with issues that are enormous interest to Chevron across the globe -- and you can't recuse yourself from everything."

Lewis said that while some have written off the Condoleezza Rice as a small and humorous footnote to the Bush administration, the danger exists that it could turn into more.

"From a public relations standpoint, they're desperately hoping this is one tanker that doesn't run aground," said Lewis. "That could be a problem."





There's more if you do your research.

[DVD Burner]

Only posting this here in politics because Joel posted about how he agreed with Mr. Cosby. (how do I know about Mr. Cosby? My parents go to church with he and Ashford and Simpson and Maya Angelo amongst others......You know nothing.....know shit about me.)

Wanna know why I know people....( not everyone.) is full of shit?

Posted on Wed, Feb. 09, 2005



Source: Cos offered $ to accuser

Mom allegedly recorded call made after claim was filed

By NICOLE WEISENSEE EGAN

[email protected]


BILL COSBY was secretly taped offering financial compensation to the Canadian woman who has accused him of drugging and groping her, but she did not take him up on his offer, sources said.

The offer came after the woman reported the allegations to Canadian authorities on Jan. 13 and was made to the victim's mother, sources said. The offer is reflected in taped conversations, sources said.

Because the woman did not take him up on his offer, the tapes refute suggestions that the Canadian woman filed charges against Cosby in order to get money from him, sources said.

The Canadian woman turned over the tapes to Montgomery County prosecutors, sources said. Bebe Kivitz and Dolores Troiani, the Canadian woman's attorneys, declined to comment on the tapes.

Kivitz and Troiani did denounce yesterday's "Celebrity Justice" TV report that, citing sources connected to Cosby, said the woman's mother tried to extort money from Cosby before her daughter went to police.

The Toronto Sun, and numerous other publications, have reported that the alleged victim introduced her parents to Cosby last August when he was in Toronto. That is not true either, the lawyers said. Cosby met the woman's mother in March 2003 but has never met her father, they said. A Cosby attorney has confirmed that they did not meet him in August.

Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. was out of town yesterday and could not be reached for comment. His first assistant, Risa Vetri Ferman, did not return a phone call requesting comment.

Walter Phillips Jr., Cosby's attorney, also was out of town yesterday and could not be reached for comment.

Two weeks ago, Castor said he would reach a decision about whether to charge Cosby "or anyone else" sometime this week.

The Canadian woman got to know Cosby through her job at Temple University, where she was director of operations for the women's basketball team. Cosby was a frequent attendee of games.

The Canadian woman did not tell anyone about what she alleges happened to her until she told her mother a few weeks before she went to police, her attorneys said.

She reported the alleged drugging and groping to Canadian police on Jan. 13. She told cops it happened the previous January at Cosby's Elkins Park mansion. She said that she and Cosby were out to dinner with others in Philadelphia, then he invited her back to his home. Once there, she complained of "stress and tension" and Cosby offered her pills, she said, according to a police report.

After she took the pills, she became "dizzy and sick" and Cosby helped her to a sofa, the report said. After that, she said her memories are fuzzy but she recalls Cosby "touching her breast and placing her hand on his penis," the report said. She woke up about 4 a.m. with "her clothing in disarray and her bra undone," the report said, and drove herself home.

Yesterday, the Daily News reported that another woman has come forward to say Cosby drugged and groped her about 30 years ago.

Tamara Green, a semi-retired attorney in Ventura, Calif., said she gave a statement to Castor's office and to Troiani and Kivitz.

She said she came forward now because Phillips, Cosby's attorney, has called the Canadian woman's story "bizarre" and "preposterous" and Castor had characterized the case against Cosby as weak.

"I heard his lawyer said her claims were preposterous and basically I thought, 'My eye. He did exactly the same thing to me,' " Green, 57, said in yesterday's Daily News.

"Then I heard a press release from the district attorney saying he thought the case was weak and why did she wait so long to come forward?" Green said. "I worked in a D.A.'s office and that's D.A.-speak for 'We're not filing charges.' I felt compelled to come forward after that."

Yesterday, on Michael Smerconish's morning radio show on WPHT (1210-AM), before heading to Canada on another case, Castor angrily denied that he said the case against Cosby was weak.

"You'll find no place where I said the case was weak or anything of that nature," Castor said. "What I said was, under Pennsylvania law, a delay in reporting... is to the benefit of the defendant, unless there is some good reason why a victim waited to come forward. That's what I said."


Cosby is human like everyone else. ( and you said what about Clinton? Lets be real. )




Ok ok....this could all be wrong and a very big mis understanding.

[DVD Burner]

Iraq election results delayed
Wed Feb 9, 2005 11:16 AM GMT


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The announcement of the final vote count following Iraq's historic elections, which had previously been expected on Thursday, has been delayed while some ballot boxes are re-examined, election officials say.

Farad Ayar, spokesman for Iraq's Electoral Commission, said work would begin on Thursday on examining around 300 ballot boxes and the final tally would be announced later in the month.

The commission has said that a number of ballot boxes were tampered with by gunmen during the January 30 election, mainly in the northern city of Mosul.

Partial election results announced so far show an alliance of mainly Shi'ite Islamist groups far in the lead, as expected. A coalition of Kurdish parties is second and a bloc led by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is third.



© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

I smell some suckers being had.....

[cowboyangel]

Why Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews
Avi Shlaim, The Electronic Intifada, 4 February 2005

Avi Shlaim

Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and the state of Israel is its political expression. Israel used to be a symbol of freedom and a source of pride for the Jews of the Diaspora. Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians, however, has turned it into a liability and a moral burden for the liberal segment of the Jewish community. Some Jews, especially on the left, would go even further by linking Israel's behavior to the upsurge of the new anti-Semitism throughout the world.

Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories since 1967 is the underlying problem. Occupation transformed the Zionist movement from a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jews into a colonial power and an oppressor of the Palestinians.

By Zionism today I mean the ideological, ultra-nationalist settlers and their supporters in the Likud-led government. These settlers are a tiny minority but they maintain a stranglehold over the Israeli political system. They represent the unacceptable face of Zionism. Zionism does not equal racism, but many of these hard-line settlers and their leaders are blatant racists. Their extremism and their excesses have led some people to start questioning not just the Zionist colonial project beyond the 1967 borders but also the legitimacy of the state of Israel within those borders. And it is these settlers who also endanger the safety and well-being of Jews everywhere.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon personifies this xenophobic, exclusive, aggressive and expansionist brand of Zionism. One of the greatest accolades in Judaism is to be a rodef shalom, a seeker of peace. Sharon is not that by any stretch of the imagination. He is a man of war and the champion of violent solutions.

Sharon's purpose is politicide: to deny the Palestinians any independent political existence in Palestine. His plan for withdrawal from Gaza is called "the unilateral disengagement plan." It is not a peace plan but a prelude to the annexation of large chunks of the West Bank to Israel. Sharon, the unilateralist par excellence, is a Jewish Rambo - the antithesis of the traditional Jewish values of truth, justice and tolerance.

Sharon's government is waging a savage war against the Palestinian people. Its policies include the confiscation of land; the demolition of houses; the uprooting of trees; curfews, roadblocks and 736 checkpoints that inflict horrendous hardships; the systematic abuse of Palestinian human rights; and the building of the illegal wall on West Bank, a wall that is as much about land-grabbing as it is about security.

It is this brand of cruel Zionism that is the real enemy of what remains of liberal Israel and of the Jews outside Israel. It is the enemy because it fuels the flames of virulent and sometimes violent anti-Semitism. Israel's policies are the cause; hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism are the consequences.

There has been much talk in recent years about "the new anti-Semitism." The argument, in a nutshell, is that the resurgence of anti-Semitism has little or nothing to do with Israel's behavior. Anti-Zionism is merely a surrogate, so the argument runs, for bad, old-fashioned anti-Semitism.

These arguments need to be addressed. First: What is anti-Semitism? Isaiah Berlin defined an anti-Semite as "someone who hates Jews more than is strictly necessary!" This mischievous definition has the merit of applying to all anti-Semitism, old as well as new.

But we need to look beyond the labels. Is there a lot of classic anti-Semitism about? Yes. Is anti-Semitism spreading in Europe? Yes, at an alarming rate. Do some people use anti-Zionism as a respectable cover for their despicable Judeophobia? Alas, yes again. What is the relative weight of hatred of Israel on the one hand and Judeophobia on the other in the making of the new anti-Semitism? I don't know.

What I do know is that a lot of decent people, without any anti-Semitic baggage, are furious with Israel because of its oppression of the Palestinians. There is simply no getting away from the fact that attitudes toward Israel are changing as a result of its own shift towards the Zionism of the extreme right and of the radical rabbis. During the years of the Oslo peace process, Israel was in fact the favorite of the West because it was willing to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Israel's image today is negative not because it is a Jewish state but because it habitually transgresses the norms of acceptable international behavior. Indeed, Israel is increasingly perceived as a rogue state, as an international pariah, and as a threat to world peace.

This perception of Israel is a major factor in the recent resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe and in the rest of the world. In this sense, Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews. It is a tragedy that a state that was built as a haven for the Jewish people after the Holocaust is now one of the least safe places on earth for Jews to live in. Israel ought to withdraw from the occupied territories not as a favor to the Palestinians but as a favor to itself and to world Jewry for, as Karl Marx noted, a people that oppresses another cannot itself remain free.

[cowboyangel]

[Rian Jackson]

Anniversary Pics

This was taken in Europe. Iran's having an anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

[joel the ornery]

Ward Churchill is a fraud.


Elephants in Academia: Calling all Chickens

The Ward Churchill Saga Continues

The Academic Left Revisited

Ward Churchill, Bill O'Reilly, and freedom of speech

Churchill's identity revealed in wake of Nazi comment

[DVD Burner]

Ward Churchill is a fraud.


Elephants in Academia: Calling all Chickens

The Ward Churchill Saga Continues

The Academic Left Revisited

Ward Churchill, Bill O'Reilly, and freedom of speech

Churchill's identity revealed in wake of Nazi comment

Looks like this is the split of eplaya and the rest of the states.

The revolution is starting and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

( you actually have the nerve to use Bill O'Reilly's name in the same post? . You gotta be kidding.)

Told yall Joel was into fox news.

what a disappointment. The truth hurts don’t it?

So after all this time Joel, this really has been making your blood boil huh?
You sad pathetic little man.

Let it go.

[Simply Joel]

DVD, if you had taken a moment and checked those links, you would have found a reference to Fox News by the author, Lona Manning yet nothing from Fox News.

Let it go.

It being urine? I certainly will let "it" go all over your feet when we meet.

[DVD Burner]

DVD, if you had taken a moment and checked those links,

DOOOOOD!

What makes you think that I do not read everything that you post.

Even that was funny.

You are batting a million today Joel.

[joel the ornery]

You are batting a million today Joel.

and you are still an imbecilic moron playing eplaya court jester...

and the difference between you and I... i may not make mistakes engaging you tomorrowor the next day, yet... you will still be an imbecilic moron playing eplaya court jester.

and i don't see that changing in the near or distant future.

[geekster]

From today's San Francisco Chronicle. I thought it was funny.



Good luck to Howard Dean, but what the Democratic Party really needs is Super Nanny.

Have you seen this reality TV show? Super Nanny, a British child-care expert, arrives at the home of a disorderly, undisciplined family and, within a week, she has the kids calm and cordial and the parents making decisions with consistency and confidence. Speak in a united voice, she tells the parents. Remember your core principles. Be clear and firm. Don't worry about the kids "not liking you.'' You can be nurturing and tough-minded at the same time.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is doing her level best -- having raised children of her own -- to whip the Democrats into shape. But she's up against years and years of dysfunction. While Republicans have been marching the family through precise formations and drilling them on party catechism, the Democrats are still chasing each other around the coffee table. They seem almost hopeless, really, unable to get themselves organized into a cohesive unit that can confidently articulate, and consistently follow, its shared values.

"They are still struggling to present what they believe from a moral or commonsense point of view,'' said George Lakoff, a Democratic consultant and linguistics professor at UC Berkeley.

"They don't have the language to present what they really believe. ... They need to identify the values and messages that people can agree on and not sneer at those who disagree. They need to see that they can speak in one voice while still being themselves within the family.''

Super Nanny would tell them to ditch the rambling, all-encompassing dissertations that try to please everyone and instead to distill their principles and goals to a list they can tape to the fridge. The Democrats need, in other words, their own version of Lewis Powell's famous 1971 memo to the United States Chamber of Commerce.

In it, the future Supreme Court justice laid out an ambitious plan to create influential academic and cultural institutions that, over the course of time, would reframe the public debate to be more in line with the Republican Party. From this plan sprouted the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, Accuracy in Media and other conservative groups. It also gave birth to media outlets that spread the party's message.

Super Nanny would also tell them about the importance of regular family meetings. The Democrats need their own version of Grover Norquist's Wednesday morning gatherings. Norquist, who the Washington Post called "the gardener of the conservative grassroots,'' invites more than 100 Republican lobbyists, activists, analysts and Capitol Hill and White House staffers to his Americans for Tax Reform offices in Washington, D.C., every week. They discuss issues, agree on talking points and, by the evening news, are united in their message, repeating it over and over until it begins to pass for conventional wisdom.

As Norquist told the Post: Despite varying agendas, Republicans "play nicely together.''

That they do, and the Democrats ought to be taking notes. But the Republicans could benefit from a visit from Super Nanny themselves.

They are, as Lakoff has written, the "Strict Father'' party. The dad rules the roost, and everyone obeys. This makes for a more orderly household, but a less thinking and less compassionate one. The father squelches dissent. He rules from the standpoint that the world is a dangerous place and he keeps the family safe by whatever means necessary.

The problem with this, as Super Nanny will tell you, is that decisions based on the father's beliefs, not an examination of the facts, inevitably lead to poor decisions -- sometimes truly hurtful and damaging ones. Because he doesn't solicit information from the rest of the family, he has little sense of the complexities of situations and the potential impact of his decisions. And because he sees himself as all-powerful and all-knowing, the mistakes go uncorrected.

Clearly, Democrats don't want to become Republicans. That isn't the answer to healing its dysfunction. The party of FDR believes in its traditional values: a government that is both compassionate and demanding, that is unwavering in its ideals and flexible in its problem solving. This core belief system is something Super Nanny can't teach. It is either in the family or it's not.

But all the heart in the world doesn't get the toys picked up or the garbage taken out or the homework done. Heart has to be balanced by practicality and discipline and responsibility. In the TV show, Super Nanny swoops in, fixes up the family and leaves at the end of the week. I always wonder how the families fare after the cameras leave. Were they fundamentally changed for the long haul?

That's what the Democrats must finally confront for themselves, right now, as they head into a new era with a new party chairman. What matters isn't what happens when the cameras are on. What matters is the hard, focused work day in and day out, so that four years from now, maybe the Democrats won't end up, yet again, muttering to themselves in the naughty corner.

[Ranger Genius]

Batting a million? That means that every time he comes up to bat, he hits the ball 1000 times.

[DVD Burner]

Ahhh,

It's turning lively in here.


About time.

[theCryptofishist]

That's two schroedingers in one day.

[joel the ornery]

Batting a million? That means that every time he comes up to bat, he hits the ball 1000 times.

RG, he said it, it must be the truth, i am that good.

(spoken with tongue planted firmly in cheek)

[cowboyangel]

then join me on the playa for baseball

[joel the ornery]

then join me on the playa for baseball

CBA, not in this lifetime, at least the baseball part of it.

and now for the award for "how could you be so fucking stupid"

Lawyer Convicted of Helping Terrorists
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - A veteran civil rights lawyer was convicted Thursday of crossing the line by smuggling messages of violence from one of her jailed clients — a radical Egyptian sheik — to his terrorist disciples on the outside.

The jury had deliberated 13 days over the past month before convicting Lynne Stewart, 65, a firebrand, left-wing activist known for representing radicals and revolutionaries in her 30 years on the New York legal scene.

Stewart faces up to 20 years in prison on charges that include conspiracy, giving material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government.

Minutes before the verdict was read, Stewart said she felt "nervous. I'm scared, worried." When she heard the pronouncement, Stewart began shaking her head and wiping her eyes. The courtroom was filled with her supporters, who gasped. She will remain free on bail, but must stay in New York, until her July 15 sentencing.

The trial focused attention on the line between zealous advocacy and criminal behavior by a lawyer. Some defense lawyers saw the case as a government warning to attorneys to tread carefully in terrorism cases.

The jury also convicted a U.S. postal worker, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, of plotting to "kill and kidnap persons in a foreign country" by publishing an edict urging the killing of Jews and their supporters. A third defendant, Arabic interpreter Mohamed Yousry, was convicted of providing material support to terrorists. Sattar could face life in prison and Yousry up to 20 years.

Stewart was the lawyer for Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind sheik sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for conspiring to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and destroy several New York landmarks, including the U.N. building and the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels. Stewart's co-defendants also had close ties to Abdel-Rahman.

Prosecutors said Stewart and the others carried messages between the sheik and senior members of a Egyptian-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's venomous call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.

At the time, the sheik was in solitary confinement in Minnesota under special prison rules to keep him from communicating with anyone except his wife and his lawyers.

Prosecutor Andrew Dember argued that Stewart and her co-defendants essentially "broke Abdel-Rahman out of jail, made him available to the worst kind of criminal we find in this world — terrorists."

Stewart, who once represented Weather Underground radicals and mob turncoat Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, repeatedly declared her innocence, maintaining she was unfairly targeted by overzealous prosecutors.

But she also testified that she believed violence was sometimes necessary to achieve justice: "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."

A major part of the prosecution's case was Stewart's 2000 release of a statement withdrawing the sheik's support for a cease-fire in Egypt by his militant followers. Prosecutors, though, could point to no violence that resulted from the statement.

Videotape of prison conversations between Stewart and the sheik also were played for jurors — recordings the defense denounced as an intrusion into attorney-client privilege.

The Grand Jury Indictment

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

- v. -

AHMED ABDEL SATTAR,
a/k/a "Abu Omar,"
a/k/a "Dr. Ahmed,"
LYNNE STEWART, and
MOHAMMED YOUSRY,

Defendants.
Superseding Indictment


SI 02 Cr. 395 (JGK)

INTRODUCTION

The Grand Jury charges:

1. From at least the early 1990's until in or about April 2002, Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman, a/k/a “the Sheikh,” a/k/a “Sheikh Omar” (hereinafter, “Abdel Rahman”), who is a co-conspirator not named as a defendant herein, was an influential and high-ranking member of terrorist organizations based in Egypt and elsewhere. Abdel Rahman considered nations, governments, institutions, and individuals that did not share his radical interpretation of Islamic law to be “infidels” and interpreted the concept of “jihad” (“struggle”) to compel the waging of opposition against such infidels by whatever means necessary, including force and violence.

2. According to Abdel Rahman's public remarks in 1990, “Jihad … there is no such thing as commerce, industry and science in jihad. This is calling things … other than by its own names. If God …says do jihad, it means do ‘jihad with the sword, with the cannon, with the grenades and with the missile’ this is jihad. Jihad against God's enemies for God's cause and His word."

3. Abdel Rahman supported and advocated jihad to, among other things: (1) overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with an Islamic state; (2) destroy the nation of Israel and give the land to the Palestinians; and (3) oppose those governments, nations, institutions, and individuals, including the United States and its citizens, whom he perceived as enemies of Islam and supporters of Egypt and Israel.

4. Abdel Rahman endorsed terrorism to accomplish his goals. In a speech he gave prior to May 2, 1994, Abdel Rahman said: “Why do we fear the word ‘terrorist?’ If the terrorist is the person who defends his right; so we are terrorists. And if the terrorist is the one who struggles for the sake of God, [then] we are terrorists. We … have been ordered with terrorism because we must prepare what power we can to terrorize the enemy of God and yours. The Quran [the Islamic holy book] mentioned the word ‘to strike terror,’ therefore we don't fear to be described with ‘terrorism’… They may say ‘he is a terrorist, he uses violence, he uses force.’ Let them say that.

We are ordered to “prepare whatever we can of power to terrorize the enemies of Islam.’”

5. Abdel Rahman exercised leadership while subordinates carried out the details of specific terrorist operations. Abde1 Rahman, who was viewed by his followers and associates as a religious scholar, provided necessary guidance regarding whether particular terrorist activities were permissible or forbidden under his extremist interpretation of Islamic law, and at times provided strategic advice concerning whether such activities would be an effective means of achieving their goals. Abdel Rahman also solicited persons to commit violent terrorist actions. Additionally, Abdel Rahman served as a mediator of disputes among his followers and associates.

6. On or about July 2, 1993, Abdel Rahman was arrested in the United States. In October 1995, a jury sitting in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York convicted Abdel Rahman of engaging in a seditious conspiracy to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States, which included the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks, including the United Nations, the FBI building in New York, and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. The jury also found Abdel Rahman guilty of soliciting crimes of violence against the United States military and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. In January 1996, Abdel

Rahman was sentenced to life imprisonment. On August 16, 1999, Abdel Rahman's conviction was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and; on January 10, 2000, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear his case and his conviction thus became final. Since on or about 1997, Abdel Rahman has been incarcerated in various facilities operated by the United States Bureau of Prisons, including the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota.

7. Following his arrest, Abdel Rahman urged his followers to wage jihad to obtain his release from custody. For instance, in a message to his followers recorded while he was in prison, Abdel Rahman stated that it was the duty of all Muslims to set free any imprisoned fellow Muslims, and that “[t]he Sheikh is calling on you, morning and evening. Oh Muslims! Oh Muslims! And he finds no respondents. It is a duty upon all the Muslims around the world to come to free the Sheikh, and to rescue him from his jail.” Referring to the United States, Abdel Rahman implored, “Muslims everywhere, dismember their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, provoke their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, and shoot down their planes, kill them on land, at sea, and in the air. Kill them wherever you find them.”

8. Both prior to and after his arrest and imprisonment, Abdel Rahman was a spiritual leader of an international terrorist group based in Egypt and known as the Islamic Group, a/k/a “Gama'a al-Islamiyya,” a/k/a “IG,” a/k/a “al-Gama'at,” a/k/a “Islamic Gama'at,” a/k/a “Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya” (hereinafter, the “Islamic Group”). Abdel Rahman played a key role in defining and articulating the goals, policies, and tactics of the Islamic Group.

9. According to Abdel Rahman's public remarks in 1990, Egyptian youths in the 1970's "established what is called Al Gama'a al-Islamiyya…, reviving [it] for the sake of Allah . . . . The Islamic group . . . started simple, few, little, then it spread and now has mosques and has presence in the governorates of Egypt … [M]any of them were killed for the cause of God as they had sacrificed their own souls; they carried out many jihad operations against those tyrants. The most famous and the most successful operation was fighting the atheist,. the oppressor and the profligate by killing him, Anwar Al-Sadat [the Egyptian president who was assassinated in 1981]… and now, it is hoping for another operation, God willing."

10. Abdel Rahman’s followers, including those associated with the Islamic Group, shared his views about the reasons for jihad, including the goal of obtaining Abdel Rahman’s release from United States custody.

Efforts to Secure Abdel Rahman’s Release

11. After Abdel Rahman’s arrest, a coalition of terrorists, supporters, and followers, including leaders and as.sociates of the Islamic Group, al Qaeda, the Egyptian Islamic Jim [sic], and the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines threatened and committed acts of terrorism directed at obtaining the release of Abdel Rahman from prison.

12. On or about July 4, 1993, the defendant, AHMED AHDEL SATTAR, a/k/a “Abu Omar,” a/k/a “Dr. Ahmed,” spoke to the media regarding Abdel Rahman’s arrest and stated that “we haven’t decided the time or place, but our Muslim community will definitely demonstrate its outrage at the arrest of the Sheikh,“ and that, “if anything happens to the Sheikh, we will hold the American administration responsible … Something very bad could happen.”

13. On or about January 21, 1996, a statement, issued in the name of the Islamic Group, responded to the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on Abdel Rahman by threatening, “All American interests will be legitimate targets for our struggle until the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his brothers. As the American Government has opted for open confrontation with the Islamic movement and the Islamic symbols of struggle, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya swears by God to its irreversible vow to take an eye for an eye.”

14. On or about April 21, 1996, an Islamic Group leader, who is a co-conspirator not named as a defendant herein (“CC-1”), stated during an interview that “the question of kidnapping Americans as a ransom for [Abdel Rahman] is in the cards, not ruled out, and under consideration.”

15. On or about February 12, 1997, a statement issued in the name of the Islamic Group threatened, “The Islamic Group declares all American interests legitimate targets to its legitimate jihad until the release of all prisoners, on top of whom” is Abdel Rahman.

16. On or about May 5, 1997, a statement issued in the name of the Islamic Group threatened, “If any harm comes to the heikh … al-Gama al-IsIalamiy[y]a will target … all of those Americans who participated in subjecting his life to danger.” The statement also said that “A1-Gamaa al-Islamiyya considers every American official, starting with the American president to the despicable jailer … partners endangering the Sheikh’s life,” and that the Islamic Group would do “everything in its power” to free Abdel Rahman. This statement by the Islamic Group followed a statement released to the media on May 2, 1997, by one of Abdel Rahman’s attorneys that “t sounds like the Sheikh’s condition is deteriorating and obviously could be life-threatening.”

17. On or about November 17, 1997, six assassins shot and stabbed a group of tourists visiting an archeological site in Luxor,. Egypt. Fifty-eight foreign tourists were killed along with four Egyptians, some of whom were police officers. Before making their exit, the terrorists scattered leaflets espousing their support for the Islamic Group and calling for the release of Abdel Rahman. Also, the torso of one victim was slit by the terrorists and a leaflet calling for Abdel Rahman's release was inserted.

18. On or about November 18, 1997, a statement issued in the name of the Islamic Group said, "A Gama'a unit tried to take prisoner the largest number of foreign tourists possible … with the aim of securing the release of the general emir. (commander) of the Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Dr. Abdel-Rahman." The statement continued, "But the rash behavior and irresponsibility of government security forces with regard to tourist and civilian lives led to the high number of fatalities." The statement aIso warned that the Islamic Group “will continue its military operations as long as the regime does not respond to our demands.” The statement listed the most important demands as “the establishment of God’s law, cutting relations with the Zionist entity (Israel) … and the return of our sheik[h] and emir to his land.”

19. On or about October 13, 1999, a statement in the name of Islamic Group leader Rifa'i Ahmad Taha Musa, a/k/a “Abu Yasir” (hereinafter, “Taha”), who is a co-conspirator not named. as a defendant herein, vowed to rescue Abdel Rahman and said that the United States’ “hostile strategy to the Islamic movemehtn would drive it to "unify its efforts to confront America’s piracy.”

20. In or about March 2000, individuals claiming association with the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group kidnapped approximately 29 hostages in the Philippines, demanded the release from prison of Abdel Rahman and two other convicted terrorists in exchange for the release of those hostages, and threatened to behead hostages if their demands were not met. Philippine authorities later found two decomposed, beheaded bodies in an area where the hostages had been held, and four hostages were ‘unaccounted for.’

21. On or about September 21, 2000, an Arabic television station, Al Jazeera, televised a meeting of Usama Bin Laden (leader of the al Qaeda terrorist organization), Ayman al Zawahiri (former leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jiha organization and one of Bin Laden's top lieutenants), and Taha. Sitting under a banner which read, "Convention to Support Honorable Omar Abdel Rahman," the three terrorist leaders pledged "mad to free Abdel Rahman from incarceration in the United States. During the meeting, Mohammed Abdel Rahman, a/k/a "Asadallah," who is a son of Abdel Rahman, was heard encouraging others to "avenge your Sheikh" and "go to the spilling of blood."

Other Relevant Events

22. At various times starting in or about July 1997, certain Islamic Group leaders and factions called for an “initiative” (or cease-fire,) in which the Islamic Group would suspend terrorist operations in Egypt in a tactical effort to persuade the Egyptian government to release Islamic Group leaders, members, and associates who were in prison in Egypt.

23. In or about February 1998, Usama Bin Laden and Taha, among others, issued a fatw (a legal ruling issued by an Islamic scholar) that stated, among other things, “We, in the name of God, call on every Muslim who believes in God and desires to be rewarded, to follow God's order to kill Americans and plunder their wealth wherever and whenever they find it.”

24. On or about October 12, 2000, in Aden Harbor, Yemen, two terrorists piloted a bomb-laden boat alongside the United States Navy vessel the U.S.S. Cole and detonated a bomb that ripped a hole in the side of the U.S.S. Cole approximately 40 feet in diameter, murdering seventeen crew members, and wounding at least forty other crew members.

The Special Administrative Measures zmnosed on Abdel Rahman

25. Beginning in or about April 1997, United States authorities, in order to protect the national security, limited certain of Ab.del Rahman's privileges in prison, including his access to the mail, the media, the telephone, and visitors. At that time, the Bureau of Prisons (at the direction of the Attorney General) imposed Special Administrative Measures (“SAMs”) upon Abdel Rahman, pursuant to a federal_regulation (28 C.F.R. § 501.3). The stated purpose of the SAMs was to protect “persons against the risk of death or serious bodily injury” that could result if Abdel Rahman were free “to communicate (send or receive) terrorist information.” Under the SAMs, Abdel Rahman could only call his wife or his attorneys and their translator, could only be visited by his immediate family members or his attorneys and their translator, and could only receive mail after it was screened by federal authorities. In addition, the SAMs prohibited communication with any member or representative news media. More specifically, as of April 7, 1999, the SAMs provided that “[t]he inmate will not be permitted to talk with, meet with, correspond with, or otherwise communicate with any member, or representative, of the news media, in person, by telephone, by furnishing a recorded message, through the mails, through his attorney(s), or otherwise.”

26. The SAMS specifically provided that attorneys for Abdel Rahman were obliged to sign an affirmation, acknowledging that they and their staff would abide fully by the SAMs, before being allowed access to Abdel Rahman. The attorneys agreed in these affirmations, among other things, to "only be accompanied by translators for the purpose of communicating with inmate Abdel Rahman concerning legal matters." Moreover, since at least in or about May 1998, the attorneys also agreed not to "use [their] meetings, correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman."

[cowboyangel]

Press freedom "White House Style"
Slaughter Wants Explanation on White House Media Policy

New York Representative and Senior Member of the House Rules Committee Louise Slaughter wrote a letter to the White House demanding how fake news reporter “Jeff Gannon” a.k.a. James D. Guckert of Talon News gained access to numerous White House press briefings day in and day out, got to ask softball questions to Bush, and was reportedly the only person allowed access to an internal CIA memo that named CIA agent Valerie Plame. "It appears that 'Mr. Gannon's' presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your administration," Slaughter wrote. Meanwhile, Press Secretary Scott McClellan at the press gaggle on Thursday said that he heard “at some point… previously” that his real name was Guckert, without going into any further detail. A team of bloggers investigated Gannon/Guckert had found his lack of credentials, along with his registering of Hotmilitarystud.Com, Militaryescorts.Com, among other domains showing that Gannon/Guckert was a hypocrite. By Tuesday night, Gannon/Guckert quit. Eric Boehlert of Salon.Com weighs in by asking, “The Talon News fiasco raises serious questions about who the White House is allowing into its daily press briefings: How can a reporter using a fake name and working for a fake news organization get press credentials from the White House, let alone curry enough favor with the notoriously disciplined Bush administration to get picked by the president in order to ask fake questions?” Gannon/Guckert apparently did not have a “hard pass” allowing him access to White House briefings each day without prior approval. Instead, he picked up a daily pass each day through the White House press office. Long-time members of the press corps say there is no way that someone with an alias could get in because of the intense background checks conducted. Someone in the White House had to be waving him in, says David Brock, CEO and president of Media Matters for America. Blog sites such as DailyKos and Eschaton had found Talon News was a news agency in "name only." Talon News has no real newsroom or office and consists of "volunteer reporters" directed by an editor-in-chief named Bobby Eberle, a Texas conservative who distributes most of the stories through his other organization (where he is president and CEO) called GOPUSA.

[cowboyangel]

Lynn Stewart will win on appeal. She is a fine woman. I have faith in the system

[cowboyangel]

http://airamericaradio.com
Today Randi Rhodes focuses on the explosive news that the F.A.A. ignored 52 warnings about possible Al Qaeda suicide hijackings before September 11th. Listen to Randi today to hear more about the Classified document that was part of the 9-11 Commission Report. Did the Bush Administration want 9-11 to happen as outlined in the Project for the New American Century? And the mainstream media are onto the "Jeff Gannon" pesudo-reporter story. But are they asking the right questions? Tune into The Randi Rhodes Show today.

[cowboyangel]

http://www.lynnestewart.org/

for the real story