Manscape

And you thought General George Washington made sacrifices! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1302783_pf.html Bush Says He's Not A Golfer In Wartime By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, May 14, 2008; A02 President Bush said yesterday that he gave up golfing in 2003 "in solidarity" with the families of soldiers who were dying in Iraq, concluding that it was "just not worth it anymore" to play the sport in a time of war. "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," Bush said in a White House interview with the Politico. "I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal." Bush said he decided to stop playing golf on Aug. 19, 2003, when a truck bomb in Baghdad killed U.N. special representative Sergio Vieira de Mello and more than a dozen others. He said he received word of the attack while playing golf during a stay at the family ranch near Crawford, Tex. Press reports at the time indicate he took the call from Condoleezza Rice, then his national security adviser. "They pulled me off the golf course, and I said it's just not worth it anymore to do," Bush said in yesterday's interview. Democrats have criticized Bush for allegedly not requiring Americans to sacrifice enough while waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and for urging people to keep shopping as a way to fight terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Bush was also widely criticized in August 2002 when he decried terrorist bombings in Israel while golfing and then told reporters: "Now watch this drive." Although Bush says he has given up golf, he is a mountain-biking enthusiast who has been photographed taking part in rides. He took up biking after an injury sidelined him from running. Nearly every president of the past century, including Bush and his father, has been a regular golfer. Presidential historian Robert Dallek noted that Dwight D. Eisenhower's golf habit was so advanced that Democrats accused him of neglecting his duties. But Dallek, who is critical of the current president's legacy, said Bush's remarks about Iraq "speak to his shallowness." Dallek added: "That's his idea of sacrifice, to give up golf?"

Moonface gets Saturday nighted!! Enjoy!! Last night's all new "Saturday Night Live" was hosted by actor Shia Labeouf. The show opened with Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton giving a message to America. Poehler's Clinton says how the race is "hopelessly deadlocked" and she gives reasons why she will make the better president. Reason one? "I am a sore loser... I will probably refuse to campaign for him." Second: "My supporters are racist." It goes from there. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/11/s...s_n_101177.html

What decent people, American or not, need to do is TRUMPET the crimes and corruptions of American leadership until every last one of the scumbags walk into the sea.................. More NEOCON responsibility taking! http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/08/rumsfe...e-war-planning/ Rumsfeld blames the generals for poor pre-war planning.» In February 2003, Gen. Eric Shinseki famously predicted that “several hundred thousand” troops would be needed for post-war hostilities in Iraq. According to documents recently released by the Pentagon in response to The New York Times’s expose on its propaganda program, however, Donald Rumsfeld claimed in a 2006 briefing that the reason why he did not support a larger invasion force was because commanders did not request it: RUMSFELD: Now, it turns out he [shinkseki] was right. The commanders–you guys ended up wanting roughly the same as you had for the major combat operation, and that’s what we have. There is no damned guidebook that says what the number ought to be. We were queued up to go up to what, 400-plus thousand. Q: Yes, they were already in queue. RUMSFELD: They were in the queue. We would have gone right on if they’d wanted them, but they didn’t, so life goes on. In reality, Rumsfeld fought back when generals like Shinseki requested more troops. He said in 2003 that Shinseki was “far from the mark.” As McClatchy reported in 2004, “Central Command originally proposed a force of 380,000 to attack and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld’s opening bid was about 40,000. … By September 2003, Rumsfeld and his aides thought, there would be very few American troops left in Iraq.”

Remember............get your of age children to ENLIST............ Some War Dead Were Cremated at Facility Handling Pets By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 10, 2008; Page A01 "..............Officials said they do not know the number of service members cremated at the Kent County facility, which is identified on a billboard as Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service..................." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...mail/components (hey, dumbed down America will go for ANYTHING........just tell them what they want to hear on television!)

Please examine closely point #6............"Explosive Obama Fundraising"............wave upon massive wave of $25 level donations from Americans disgusted with leadership "business as usual" have re-written the book on how to become the POTUS. Meanwhile, Moonface and Bulgeface cough and sputter with their corporate benefactors and campaign"give-myself-a-loan" and "Swiftboat" tactics of electioneering.........wow, THAT'S what America needs to empower after Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush giving us a crippled nation today.........MORE DEADENDERS with the "same old" malignancies and deceptions. Is it really incomprehensible that Obama wins among the young and the educated? Read on, my KOTW colleagues............. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-cream...e_b_101307.html Top 10 Reasons Obama Defeated Clinton for the Democratic Nomination By Robert Creamer Posted May 12, 2008 | 10:18 AM (EST) Now that the outcome of the battle for the Democratic nomination has been settled beyond a reasonable doubt, it's worth looking systematically at the major factors that gave victory to Obama. After all, fifteen months ago, conventional wisdom viewed Obama as an audacious long shot. The very idea of a first-term African American senator with a name like Barack Obama defeating the vaunted Clinton machine seemed preposterous. Here are my Top Ten reasons why lightning struck in the contest for the 2008 Democratic nomination (apologies to David Letterman ): #10. Great Team. Obama assembled a great team that could work together. He stayed away from lobbyist insiders like Clinton's Mark Penn or McCain's Charlie Black, and choose political professionals who are committed to progressive values like David Plouffe, David Axelrod, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes. From the first he insisted on one key rule: no drama. There was little of the infighting and division in the Obama operation that ate away at the Clinton campaign. Clinton had many capable staffers and consultants, but Penn's divisive leadership style and failures as a strategist doomed the campaign organization to dysfunction. When the brilliant Geoff Garin was tapped to succeed Penn as Chief Strategist in April, it was simply too late. #9. All-State Strategy. Mark Penn was convinced that Clinton could sew up the nomination by Super Tuesday focusing only on the big states. In fact, some have reported that he mistakenly believed that California had a "winner take all" primary. Obama's team hunted for delegates in every nook and cranny of America - especially in the caucus states that Clinton really didn't contest. Obama ran an active, on-the-ground campaign in every contest, from California to Guam. As a consequence, as one anonymous Clinton insider reports, Clinton lost the nomination in February after Obama ran the table in 11 straight states. #8. No Plan B. The Clinton campaign had no fall-back plan when it failed to capture the nomination on February 5. There was no money, no organization and no plan to contest the states that lie in the land beyond Super Tuesday. #7. Excellence in Execution: Great Field. Obama ran the best field operation in American political history -- particularly in the all important Iowa Caucuses. His campaign left no stone unturned, or a vote on the table, in any state. It opened offices everywhere, hired and trained great staff, and managed through simple, streamlined structures. It would have been easy for Obama to squander the massive influx of volunteers who were mobilized through his inspirational message. But the campaign developed structures to integrate and effectively use volunteers, both on the ground and through the Internet. In particular, it developed highly sophisticated new Internet tools to allow volunteers around the country to participate meaningfully in voter ID and get out the vote operations. #6. Explosive Obama Fundraising. Obama's ability to compete everywhere, to build great field structures and to out-communicate Clinton in the paid media rested squarely on the massive fundraising operation. Obama's traditional fundraising program ended up matching the vaunted Clinton fundraising machine. But the newly developed Internet operation provided a massive advantage. So far Obama has recruited over one-and-a-half-million donors. In other words, by the time the primary season ends, almost one of every ten Obama primary voters (so far there have been 16.3 million) will have made a financial contribution to his campaign. That is beyond unprecedented. #5. Obama Out-Communicated Clinton Using One Consistent Message. Obama's message has been consistent from Day One. Clinton lurched from "experienced insider" to "populist outsider" from Margaret Thatcher-like "Iron Lady" to a "victim being bullied." And of course, Obama's huge small-donor-driven fundraising advantage gave him the ability to out-communicate her in the paid media - often by a factor of two-to-one. #4. Hope and Inspiration trumped Fear and Anger. A core element of that Obama message has always been hope and inspiration. Early on, John Edwards hit an important cord of populist anger that is critical to any successful Democratic campaign. Right now especially, people want their leaders to be populist outsiders not "competent" insiders. But Edwards was unable to resolve that anger into hope. Obama touched the anger but also held out possibility. When Hillary "found her voice" as the fighting populist at the end of the campaign, she tapped into anger as well. She didn't hesitate to play the fear card -- both when it came to foreign policy, and by channeling the Republican frame that "elitist professional types" are trying to destroy your way of life. But she never managed to inspire and resolve that fear into hope. Inspiration is the one political message that simultaneously persuades swing voters and motivates mobilizable voters who rarely come to the polls. The North Carolina landslide provided a striking example of how inspiration can generate massive mobilization at the same time it appeals to independent swing voters. #3. Unity Trumped Division. Obama showed that appeals to division - whether from elements that stirred up fear that a "black candidate couldn't win" - or from his former pastor - could be overcome by America's overwhelming hunger for unity. Americans - and particularly young Americans - are sick of Republican appeals based on the things that divide us, particularly race. It isn't 1988 anymore. A whole generation has passed from the scene and been replaced by young people who simply don't get the passions that allowed the fear of "Willie Horton" to decide the 1988 presidential race. #2. Change Trumped Experience. Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn's fundamental strategic error was to position Clinton as the "Experience" candidate, when America desperately wanted change. Eighty percent of the voters think America is on the wrong track. They want change in general - and most importantly, they want change in the way special interests dominate Washington. Mark Penn, the consummate lobbyist-insider himself embodied the very thing people believe is wrong in Washington. It's no wonder he made this catastrophic strategic blunder. #1. Obama is an Extraordinary Candidate. Inspirational, articulate, brilliant, funny, attractive and naturally empathetic - his history as a community organizer, his experience abroad, his beautiful family, accomplished wife, and adorable kids: Obama is the kind of candidate any campaign manager would want in any year. But he is perfect for this year. While the Clintons represented the Bridge to the 21st Century, Obama is the 21st century. His own, multi-cultural story is the future of America. As the campaign tested him, he showed he was cool, deliberate and effective under fire. In the end, people vote for people. Campaigns are ultimately about the qualities of candidates --about whether or not people want them to be their leaders. Potentially, Barack Obama could become an historic, transformational leader. But John McCain has many qualities that are attractive to swing voters as well. Nothing is preordained. Now it will be up to every Democrat, every Progressive, to take advantage of this historic opportunity to make Barack Obama the American President who leads the world into a new progressive era of unprecedented possibility. Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com

Another national embarassment..........perhaps worse than the McCain impotence............ http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../09/999566.aspx CLINTON: PLAYING THE RACE CARD? Posted: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:25 AM by Domenico Montanaro Filed Under: 2008, Clinton The New York Post: “Clinton played the race card yesterday as she dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate who will have a hard time winning support from ‘white Americans.’ It was the most starkly racial comment Clinton has made in the campaign, and drew quick condemnation from some Democrats. “ ‘I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,’ she told USA Today in an interview published yesterday. She referred to an Associated Press story on Indiana and North Carolina exit polls ‘that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.’ She added, ‘There's a pattern emerging here.’” Here’s what some said in response: “Muriel Offerman, a North Carolina superdelegate who has not disclosed her choice, said, ‘That should not have been said. I think it drives a wedge, a racial wedge, and that's not what the Democratic Party's about.’ Asked about Clinton's comments, Massachusetts superdelegate Debra Kozikowsi said, ‘That's distressing. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.’” The New York Daily News: “Hillary Clinton misplays race card while Barack Obama is treated like rock star.” “ome of her supporters -- including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan) -- slammed the comments. ‘I can't believe Sen. Clinton would say anything that dumb,’ Rangel told The News as he headed to the House floor, where earlier he had embraced Obama. The bitter words came as both candidates looked ahead to West Virginia's primary Tuesday and pressed their talking points -- Clinton insisting she was in the race to win, while Obama argued he could have the nomination wrapped up when Oregon and Kentucky vote on May 20.” Peggy Noonan also believes Clinton played the race card in her USA Today interview. "If John McCain said, ‘I got the white vote, baby!’ his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party. To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical ‘the black guy can't win but the white girl can’ is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.” “‘She has unleashed the gates of hell,’ a longtime party leader told me. ‘She's saying, “He's not one of us.”’ John Edwards said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he disagrees with Clinton’s “white Americans” comment and that she's got to ask herself, "Where are the lines?" He added, “I think it’s fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her. But when that shifts to everything that is wrong with him, then we’re doing damage instead of being helpful.” And did Edwards tip his hand on who he’s backing? He called Obama the "likely nominee.” And we’ll chalk this one up to his Southern accent, but he said he "voted for 'em on Tuesday.” (Sounded an awful lot like "him.") Also… “I think Barack Obama’s doing pretty well without my help.” Edwards also said, “He is clearly the likely nominee at this point.” Edwards said he may choose to publicly declare for one of the candidates, but he’s keeping it to himself “just for now.” He added, though, that he doesn’t think his endorsement matters except to “people like you all” [the media]. He wouldn’t answer if he and his wife, Elizabeth, voted for different people. Here’s the New York Post’s headline to Charles Hurt’s column: “Desperate Hillbillies threaten to break up party.” “Well, now these racial politics have spilled out into the public and are splintering longtime, devoted Democrats into separate camps. It's become the ‘working-class whites’ versus the ‘eggheads and African-Americans.’ More: “With no one left to cry to, Sen. Clinton has gone nuclear and she's getting kookier by the minute. Yesterday she was toast. Today, she's looking more like scrambled eggs.” Politico's Smith on Clinton's blunt talk about her white support: "Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won't feign shock. But it's a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate's mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voters. And it's also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there's a substantial number of black voters." The New York Times reports it's possible Clinton will give herself more money. "Clinton advisers said Mrs. Clinton was committed to spending more of her own cash on the campaign if necessary, although they spoke optimistically about a rise in fund-raising if she prevails in Tuesday’s primary in West Virginia." More: "Clinton had been increasingly relying on Internet donations this spring from new and small-amount contributors; the day after she won the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, the campaign brought in a record $10 million online. But Hassan Nemazee, one of Mrs. Clinton’s national finance chairmen, put the amount she collected online in the 24 hours after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries at only “$1 million-plus.” Interestingly, the Times makes the point that Obama's big spending in PA for his nine-point loss actually may have dealt a devastating financial blow to Clinton. "Obama spent $9 million on television advertisements in North Carolina and Indiana, including a last minute $170,000 purchase in the expensive Chicago market, which extends into northern Indiana. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton spent about $4.7 million in those states, according to CMAG. Even more, said Evan Tracey, spokesman for CMAG, the fact that Mr. Obama was able to pump $10 million into media purchases in Pennsylvania in April, even though he did not win that state, forced Mrs. Clinton to spend $5 million, cash she could have used in Indiana and North Carolina.” Yesterday, Terry McAuliffe said "seven figures." That doesn't quite confirm the million dollar Internet haul but... During a three-state whirlwind tour yesterday of half of the remaining primaries, Clinton has altered her stump speeches on energy slightly to address the specific needs of those states, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum notes. While Clinton emphasized coal technology in West Virginia (a topic normally included in a list but rarely specified on), she discussed wind power at more length in South Dakota. "When we get 52% of electricity from coal in the United States, coal is not going anywhere," Clinton said to applause in Charleston, WV. The New York Senator did emphasize the necessity for clean coal technology but assured the audience, which was sure to have included a good percentage of coal miners, that coal mining would not be eliminated. None of the coal talk was anywhere to be seen in an expanded rally in Sioux Falls, SD four hours later. Instead, the focus was on wind energy production. "It's been said that America from the Dakotas down to West Texas is the Saudi Arabia of wind," Clinton said. "And, you know, that's not just Washington political hot air talking; that's actually a fact, that if we harness the wind coming off of these plains and we had an electric grid system with the distribution system to transmit it from right here in South Dakota across our country, we would be moving toward clean renewable energy." Why go on? The New York Daily News: “Whatever happens, it's a profile in true grit. But why is she still in a race that with each passing hour appears more doomed? Admirers say she's genuinely driven to make America a better place. Critics attribute her doggedness to the consuming ambition, thirst for power and streak of narcissism she shares with her husband.” “Movie mogul and Hillary Rodham Clinton backer Harvey Weinstein told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi he would stop fund-raising for Democrats if she refused to support new primary elections in Florida and Michigan, it was reported yesterday.”

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-vil....................we're not DONE with you yet!!! America right or wrong...........here's your NEW KING! http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_decla..._evil_0508.html To woo conservatives, McCain pledges war on 'evil' RAW STORY Published: Thursday May 8, 2008 Sen. John McCain has evil on his mind. On Wednesday, he vowed to take the fight to religious persecution, human trafficking, child pornography and other "evil" if elected. Speaking at Oakland University in Rochester, Minnesota, CNN said the event was part of the Arizona' senators efforts to reach out to conservative voters. A war for values? McCain rebuked "a tendency in our age to accede to the spurious excuse of moral relativism and turn away from the harshest examples of man's inhumanity to man, to ignore the darker side of human nature that encroaches upon our decency by subtle degree." Adding to President George W. Bush's list of rogue nations -- or his infamous axis of evil (Iran, North Korea and Iraq) -- the presumptive Republican nominee "singled out" China, Iran, Myanmar, Sudan, North Korea and Saudi Arabia for restricting religious freedom -- "a subject of great importance." McCain also declared he would crack down on human trafficking, "this evil form of 21st-century slavery," and hinted at an attempt to ban an international practice of genital mutilation: "the United States are predicated on a shared respect for the basic right of women and children not to suffer atrocities to their physical and emotional health to protect traditions that should have been ended long ago." “Most of the victims of human trafficking in the United States and in most other places in the world are the most vulnerable among us, destitute women and children who are sold into bondage as sex slaves,” McCain said. He added, “We must view this evil form of 21st-century slavery every bit as important as drug trafficking.” Candidate asked about temper, war for oil After his speech, McCain was peppered with tough questions, including one about his temper and another about a recent comment many took as an admission that the war in Iraq was about oil. “The next question is about this issue that has become something of a concern to some of your colleagues in the Senate, and is concerning many Republicans as well, and that is the question of your temper,” a member of the audience began, according to the New York Times. “How dare you ask that question!” McCain parried humorously. “I wouldn’t ask it if I wasn’t concerned, sir,” the man continued. “I have a quote from a colleague of yours, Senator Thad Cochran, Republican of Mississippi, somebody you may be familiar with, and with regards to you, he said, and I quote——— ” “I’m familiar with the quote,” McCain said. The man began reading verbatim: “the thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine,” and the audience began to boo. “Look, I will confess to you, my friend, that I get angry,” Mr. McCain finally replied, listing things he said made him irate: the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pork-barrel spending projects [and] corruption." Another participant, a Democrat, asked whether the war in Iraq had been sparked by oil. “No, ma’am,” McCain declared, adding he'd always maintained the reason was “the issue of weapons of mass destruction, primarily.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The article above about an old, tired and historically angry (unstable?) man who promises to continue the epic lunacy of the Bush regime by, yes.........WAGING WAR AGAINST EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-vil as POTUS..........is disconcerting to say the least. I can only imagine why beyond a few incorrigible nuts, Bulgeface gets any support at all. Single issue and party-line voters are certainly a reason. The current American confidence building story concerning McCain, deals with his prescription drug stealing wife Cindy, who smugly refuses to make public her income tax records, citing a "pre-nuptual" with hubby Bulgeface as grounds for an exemption. Ahhhhh, the life of the elite! To my fellow KOTW DECENT HUMAN BEINGS...........I wish you a great weekend and please remember Mom and Moms everywhere..........even in Iraqnam.

Thankee yoooooo!!! Thankee yoooooo berry such!!!

No No, deadender..............your monkey boy doesn't get exoneration for Nelson Mandela residing on the US "terrorist" list for the entire Bush II disaster-era..........churlishly and seethingly explained by you that some mandated relic cast by a previous POTUS is to blame for Nelson Mandela's place of "terror" in these endless Bushdays of darkness..........no no Bryan........that will not fly here. You are messageboard PETTY (and dishonest) excusing GWB's contentment to remain Nelson Mandela on the US terrorist list for what will be essentially his entire two miserable terms! I call you DEADENDER for no small reason. You have a bacteria's mentality to defend this presidential pariah that we bleedingly sport. Shall I explain to our audience Bryan, at your expense, how a coward and his coattailers get motivated to stack the deck against world class human decency? George Monkey Bush had his coward's ax to grind with Nelson Mandela. It's revealing Bryan, that you are so suddenly OBLIVIOUS to this historic nugget and presently come down on the side of a jerk*ff when the writing is not only on the wall but upon the sky. You opine like the most reptilian of lawyers, a bottom feeder. Everybody enjoys seeing an honest and courageous man get MAINTAINED a terrorist by a deviate American president, right Bryan? OR..........is "voices from god" Bush superman enough to allow Nelson Mandela his views without blowback? Come kiss me sweet next retort, Bryan. I like my punching bags puckered with cheap lipstick. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/30/...ain538607.shtml Mandela Slams Bush On Iraq Calls U.S. Policy Arrogant And Shortsighted; Implies Bush Is Racist JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, Jan. 30, 2003 Nelson Mandela accused President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of undermining the U.N. and suggested it might be because the current secretary-general, Kofi Annan, is black. (AP) (CBS) A prominent new voice joined the international chorus of protest against U.S. preparations for war against Iraq on Thursday. Former South African President Nelson Mandela delivered a fiery speech denouncing the United States and aiming harsh personal criticism at President Bush. Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and one of the world's most respected elder statesmen, let the Bush administration have it right between the eyes, reports CBS News Correspondent Tom Fenton. "It is a tragedy, what is happening, what Bush is doing. But Bush is now undermining the United Nations," Mandela told the International Women's Forum. Mandela said he would support action against Iraq only if it is ordered by the U.N. He urged the people of the United States to join massive protests against Mr. Bush and called on world leaders, especially those with vetoes in the U.N. Security Council, to oppose him. "What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust." And that wasn't all. He attacked America for its record on human rights and for dropping atomic bombs on Japan World War II. "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care." That brought an unusually subdued reaction from the White House. "Nelson Mandela was a great leader. He remains a great man," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "But on this the president and Nelson Mandela do not see eye to eye." Fleischer pointed to a letter by eight European leaders reiterating their support of Mr. Bush. "The president expresses his gratitude to the many leaders of Europe who obviously feel differently" than Mandela, Fleischer said. "He understands there are going to be people who are more comfortable doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a holocaust." While Mandela has repeatedly condemned U.S. behavior toward Iraq in recent months, his comments Thursday were far more critical and his attack on Mr. Bush far more personal than in the past. "Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly?" he asked. "All that (Mr. Bush) wants is Iraqi oil," he said. He accused Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of undermining the United Nations and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana. "Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man? They never did that when secretary-generals were white," he said. He said Mr. Bush was "trying to bring about carnage" and appealed to the American people to vote him out of office and demonstrate against his policies. He also condemned Blair for his strong support of the United States. "He is the foreign minister of the United States. He is no longer prime minister of Britain," he said. That echoes a theme adopted by war opponents in Britain. Blair is to meet Mr. Bush for talks on Friday. Mr. Bush hosted Mandela at the White House in November 2001, where Mandela expressed his sympathy for the Sept. 11 attacks and said he supported operations in Afghanistan. Last July, the president awarded Mandela the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the nation's highest civilian honor — dubbing him "perhaps the most revered statesman of our time." ~~~~~~~~ Isn't is curious how Nelson Mandela is still on Bush's terror list today but was a guest at the White House in November 2001?

Here's Barack Obama "imploding"............. .............now go off and play little Bushnik, with your official Rish Limpie doll!! http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/200...erdel01-on.html Obama wins another key super delegate 34 comments May. 1, 2008 06:29 AM Associated Press WASHINGTON - A leader of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton has switched his allegiance to Barack Obama and is encouraging fellow Democrats to "heal the rift in our party" and unite behind the Illinois senator. Joe Andrew, who was Democratic National Committee chairman from 1999-2001, planned a news conference Thursday in his hometown of Indianapolis to urge other Hoosiers to support Obama in Tuesday's primary, perhaps the most important contest left in the White House race. He also has written a lengthy letter explaining his decision that he plans to send to other superdelegates. "I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party," Andrew said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chairman of the DNC near the end of his presidency, and Andrew endorsed the former first lady last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House. Andrew said in his letter that he is switching his support because "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain." "While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us," Andrew wrote. "John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives." Andrew said the Obama campaign never asked him to switch his support, but he decided to do so after watching Obama's handling of two issues in recent days. He said Obama took the principled stand in opposing a summer gas tax holiday that both Clinton and McCain supported, even though it would have been easier politically to back it. And he said he was impressed with Obama's handling of the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright's outspoken criticisms of the United States have threatened Obama's candidacy. Obama initially refused to denounce his former pastor, but he did so this week after Wright suggested that Obama secretly agrees with him. "He has shown such mettle under fire," Andrew said in the interview. "The Jeremiah Wright controversy just reconfirmed for me, just as the gas tax controversy confirmed for me, that he is the right candidate for our party." Andrew's decision puts Obama closer to closing Clinton's superdelegate lead. Clinton had a big advantage among superdelegates, many of whom like Andrews have ties to the Clintons and backed her candidacy early on. But most of the superdelegates taking sides recently have gone for Obama, who has won more state contests. Obama now trails her by just 19 superdelegates, 244-263. This week, he picked up eight superdelegates while she netted three. Superdelegates are nearly 800 elected leaders and Democratic Party officials who aren't bound by the outcome of state contests and can cast their ballot for any candidate at the national convention. They are especially valuable in this race since neither Clinton nor Obama can win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination through state-by-state elections. Obama now leads in the delegate count overall 1732.5 to 1597.5 for Clinton. A candidate needs 2,025 delegates to win the nomination. About 230 superdelegates remain undecided, and about 60 more will be selected at state party conventions and meetings throughout the spring. Other party leaders are encouraging superdelegates to pick a side by late June to prevent the fight from going to the national convention in August. Andrews wrote in his letter that he is calling for "fellow superdelegates across the nation to heal the rift in our party and unite behind Barack Obama." It's the second endorsement for Obama this week that could be influential in Indiana. Rep. Baron Hill, who represents a crucial swing district in the state, endorsed Obama on Wednesday. Clinton has the backing of Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, who has a vast organization in the state and has been campaigning aggressively with the former first lady. Obama and Clinton are running close in Indiana and both need a victory there - Obama to help rebound from a loss to Clinton in Pennsylvania and to prove he can win Midwestern voters and Clinton so she can overcome Obama's lead in the race overall.

All the news that's fit to control.......... http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-04-30-sites_N.htm Pentagon launches foreign news websites By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is setting up a global network of foreign-language news websites, including an Arabic site for Iraqis, and hiring local journalists to write current events stories and other content that promote U.S. interests and counter insurgent messages. The news sites are part of a Pentagon initiative to expand "Information Operations" on the Internet. Neither the initiative nor the Iraqi site, www.Mawtani.com, has been disclosed publicly. At first glance, Mawtani.com looks like a conventional news website. Only the "about" link at the bottom of the site takes readers to a page that discloses the Pentagon sponsorship. The site, which has operated since October, is modeled on two long-established Pentagon-sponsored sites that offer native-language news for people in the Balkans and North Africa. Journalism groups say the sites are deceptive and easily could be mistaken for independent news. "This is about trying to control the message, either by bypassing the media or putting your version of the message out before others (and) … there's a heavy responsibility to let people know where you're coming from," says Amy Mitchell, deputy director at the Project for Excellence in Journalism. A disclosure on a separate page "isn't something most people coming to the site are likely to see."

Like Rish Limpie asserts on his daily radio attack, Republicans are the party that "TAKES RESPONSIBILITY" for their actions!! http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=150870 McCain: 'Mission accomplished' banner wasn't Bush fault, but president bungled early Iraq war LIBBY QUAID AP News May 01, 2008 13:08 EST Republican John McCain said President Bush should not be held responsible for the much-criticized "Mission Accomplished" banner five years ago, but he should be blamed for bungling the early months of the war. On Thursday, the fifth anniversary of Bush's dramatic landing on an aircraft carrier where the banner hung, McCain said, "I thought it was wrong at the time." "So all I can tell you was that I was the strongest advocate, or one of the strongest advocates, for changing to adopt the surge," McCain told reporters. "And I think that history will judge me by the fact that I thought it was wrong." McCain said he can't blame Bush for the banner. After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the "Mission Accomplished" phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq. Instead, he said Bush should be blamed for comments like that of L. Paul Bremer, the former chief of the U.S. occupation government in Iraq, who pledged that the U.S. military would crush die-hard Saddamist "dead-enders," and of Vice President Dick Cheney, who declared the insurgency "in its last throes." "Do I blame him for that specific banner? I can't," McCain said. "But I do say that statements are made, 'a few dead-enders,' 'last throes,' those are, as opposed to the banner, direct statements which were contradicted by the facts on the ground." McCain advocated early on for a troop-increase strategy that eventually was adopted by Bush, and he is an important ally of Bush's war strategy today. But Democrat Barack Obama said McCain misled the public along with Bush. "Five years after George Bush declared 'mission accomplished' and John McCain told the American people that 'the end is very much in sight' in Iraq, we have lost thousands of lives, spent half a trillion dollars, and we're no safer," Obama said in a statement released by his presidential campaign. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton noted that the "Mission Accomplished" anniversary comes as it has become clear that the war's "planning and strategy was flawed." "Our troops deserved and deserve better," Clinton said in a statement. "The path forward is to use American diplomacy and our allies to allow U.S. forces to come home, and turn responsibility back to Iraq and its people." Source: AP News

WHO IN HELL ARE THE 29%????? PNAC and the CARLYLE GROUP extended families? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/index.html Poll: More disapprove of Bush than any other president WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll shows 71 percent disapprove of President Bush's job performance. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president. "No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. "Bush's approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon [22 percent and 24 percent, respectively], but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s," Holland said. "The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 67 percent disapproval in January 1952." While Gallup polling goes back to the 1930s, it wasn't until the Truman years that they began surveying monthly approval ratings. CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider adds, "He is more unpopular than Richard Nixon was just before he resigned from the presidency in August 1974." President Nixon's disapproval rating in August 1974 stood at 66 percent The poll also indicates that support for the war in Iraq has never been lower. Thirty percent of those questioned favored the war, while 68 percent opposed it. "Americans are growing more pessimistic about the war," Holland said. "In January, nearly half believed that things were going well for the U.S. in Iraq; now that figure has dropped to 39 percent." The numbers on the Iraq war come on the five-year anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment on board the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, when he proclaimed that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." The record-low support for the war in a CNN poll could be one reason behind the president's unpopularity, but it probably is not the only one. "Support for the war, the assessment of the economy and approval of Mr. Bush are all about the same -- bad," Schneider said. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted by telephone from Monday through Wednesday among 1,008 adult Americans. The poll's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1003797005 'Mission Accomplished': How the Media Covered the Bush Pronouncement 5 Years Ago -- and its Aftermath By Greg Mitchell Published: April 30, 2008 9:25 PM ET NEW YORK On May 1, 2003, Richard Perle advised, in a USA Today Op-Ed, “Relax, Celebrate Victory.” The same day, exactly five years ago, President Bush, dressed in a flight suit, landed on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major military operations in Iraq — with the now-infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner arrayed behind him in the war’s greatest photo op. Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a “hero” and boomed, “He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.” He added: "Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple." PBS' Gwen Ifill said Bush was "part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan." On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, "The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing." When Bush’s jet landed on an aircraft carrier, American casualties stood at 139 killed and 542 wounded. The following (drawn from my new book on Iraq and the media) looks at how one newspaper -- it happens to be The New York Times -- covered the Bush declaration and its immediate aftermath. One snippet: “The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.” * By Elisabeth Bumiller WASHINGTON, May 1—President Bush’s made-for-television address tonight on the carrier Abraham Lincoln was a powerful, Reaganesque finale to a six-week war. But beneath the golden images of a president steaming home with his troops toward the California coast lay the cold political and military realities that drove Mr. Bush’s advisors to create the moment. The president declared an end to major combat operations, White House, Pentagon and State Department officials said, for three crucial reasons: to signify the shift of American soldiers from the role of conquerors to police, to open the way for aid from countries that refused to help militarily, and—above all—to signal to voters that Mr. Bush is shifting his focus from Baghdad to concerns at home. ‘‘This is the formalization that tells everybody we’re not engaged in combat anymore, we’re prepared for getting out,’’ a senior administration official said. By Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt BAGHDAD, May 2—The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today. The United States currently has more than five divisions in Iraq, troops that fought their way into the country and units that were added in an attempt to stabilize it. But the Bush administration is trying to establish a new military structure in which American troops would continue to secure Baghdad while the majority of the forces in Iraq would be from other nations. Under current planning, there would be three sectors in postwar Iraq. The Americans would keep a division in and around Baghdad; Britain would command a multinational division in the south near Basra; and Poland would command a third division of troops from a variety of nations. By Dexter Filkins and Ian Fisher BAGHDAD, May 2—The war in Iraq has officially ended, but the momentous task of recreating a new Iraqi nation seems hardly to have begun. Three weeks after Saddam Hussein fell from power, American troops are straining to manage the forces this war has unleashed: the anger, frustration, and competing ambitions of a nation suppressed for three decades. In a virtual power vacuum, with the relationship between American military and civilian authority seeming ill defined, new political parties, Kurds, and Shiite religious groups are asserting virtual governmental authority in cities and villages across the country, sometimes right under the noses of American soldiers. There is a growing sense among educated Iraqis eager for the American-led transformation of Iraq to work that the Americans may be losing the initiative, that the single-mindedness that won the war is slackening under the delicate task of transforming a military victory into political success. By David E. Sanger WASHINGTON, May 2—In his speech, Mr. Bush argued that the invasion and liberation of Iraq were part of the American response to the attacks of Sept. 11. He called the tumultuous period since those attacks ‘‘19 months that changed the world,’’ and said Mr. Hussein’s defeat was a defeat for al-Qaeda and other terrorists as well. ‘‘The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror,’’ he said. ‘‘We have removed an ally of al-Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because that regime is no more.’’ Politically more complex for the administration is the continuing search for chemical and biological weapons, a search that so far has turned up next to nothing. One member of Mr. Bush’s war cabinet said that he suspected that Mr. Hussein had not mounted his chemical stockpiles on weapons, but suggested that sooner or later they would be found. Mr. Bush himself said tonight that the United States knew of ‘‘hundreds of sites that will be investigated.’’ Editorial, May 2 As presidential spectacles go, it would be hard to surpass George Bush’s triumphant ‘‘Top Gun’’ visit to the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln yesterday off the California coast. President Bush flew out to the giant aircraft carrier dressed in full fighter-pilot regalia as the ‘‘co-pilot’’ of a Navy warplane. After a dramatic landing on the compact deck—a new standard for high-risk presidential travel—Mr. Bush mingled with the ship’s crew, then later welcomed home thousands of cheering sailors and aviators on the flight deck in a nationally televised address. The scene will undoubtedly make for a potent campaign commercial next year. For now, though, the point was to declare an end to the combat phase of the war in Iraq and to commit the nation to the reconstruction of that shattered country. From the moment that Mr. Bush made his intention of invading Iraq clear, the question was never whether American troops would succeed, or whether the regime they toppled would be exposed to the world as a despicable one. The question was, and still is, whether the administration has the patience to rebuild Iraq and set it on a course toward stable, enlightened governance. The chaotic situation in Afghanistan is no billboard for American talent at nation-building. The American administration of postwar Iraq has so far failed to match the efficiency and effectiveness of the military invasion. But as the United States came to the end of one phase of the Iraqi engagement last night, there was still time to do better. Letter to the Editor, May 3 Some unanswered questions remain: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? What evidence makes Iraq ‘‘an ally of al-Qaeda’’? Where is Saddam Hussein? Where is Osama bin Laden? Who is next? Martin Deppe Chicago By David E. Sanger WASHINGTON, May 4—With his administration under growing international pressure to find evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons, President Bush told reporters today that ‘‘we’ll find them,’’ but cautioned that it would take some time because, he said, Mr. Hussein spent so many years hiding his stockpiles. Mr. Bush’s comments came after his senior aides, in interviews in recent days, had begun to back away from their pre-war claims that Mr. Hussein had an arsenal that was loaded and ready to fire. They now contend that he developed what they call a ‘‘just in time’’ production strategy for his weapons, hiding chemical precursors that could be quickly loaded into empty artillery shells or short-range missiles. Maureen Dowd, column, May 4 The tail hook caught the last cable, jerking the fighter jet from 150 m.p.h. to zero in two seconds. Out bounded the cocky, rule-breaking, daredevil flyboy, a man navigating the Highway to the Danger Zone, out along the edges where he was born to be, the further on the edge, the hotter the intensity. He flashed that famous all-American grin as he swaggered around the deck of the aircraft carrier in his olive flight suit, ejection harness between his legs, helmet tucked under his arm, awestruck crew crowding around. Maverick was back, cooler and hotter than ever, throttling to the max with joystick politics. Compared to Karl Rove’s ‘‘revvin’ up your engine’’ myth-making cinematic style, Jerry Bruckheimer’s movies look like Lizzie McGuire. This time Maverick didn’t just nail a few bogeys and do a 4G inverted dive with a MiG-28 at a range of two meters. This time the Top Gun wasted a couple of nasty regimes, and promised this was just the beginning. Thomas Friedman, column, May 4 President Bush may have declared the war in Iraq effectively over. But, judging from my own e-mail box—where conservative readers are bombing me for not applauding enough the liberation of Iraq, and liberals for selling out to George Bush—the war over the war still burns on here. Conservatives now want to use the victory in Iraq to defeat all liberal ideas at home, and to make this war a model for America’s relations with the world, while liberals—fearing all that—are still quietly rooting for Mr. Bush to fail. New American Deaths in Iraq, May 6 The Department of Defense has confirmed the deaths of the following Americans in the Iraq war: GIVENS, Jesse A., 34, Pfc., Army; Springfield, Mo.; Third Armored Cavalry. REYNOLDS, Sean C., 25, Sgt., Army; East Lansing, Mich.; 173rd Airborne Brigade. * Greg Mitchell's new book is titled "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq." It features a foreword by Joseph L. Galloway and a preface by Bruce Springsteen.

Bush has been emperor for almost eight years. THAT'S A LONG TIME to keep Nelson Mandela (and hugely numerous other targets) in the "axis of evil" doghouse. Let's examine the Bush II regime timeline on matters of labeling people as terrorists: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coun...errorism_Center The precursor organization of NCTC, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), established on May 1, 2003, was created by President George W. Bush by Executive Order 13354. NCTC Goals: Products, such as detailed lists of terrorists, terrorist groups, and worldwide terrorist incidents. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here's the last paragraph in the USA Today article that I posted to start this thread: When ANC members apply for visas to the USA, they are flagged for questioning and need a waiver to be allowed in the country. In 2002, former ANC chairman Tokyo Sexwale was denied a visa. In 2007, Barbara Masekela, South Africa's ambassador to the United States from 2002 to 2006, was denied a visa to visit her ailing cousin and didn't get a waiver until after the cousin had died, Berman's legislation says. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now after eight years, with monkey boy in the last days of his disastrous dictatorship, do you REALLY think Bush has any innocence concerning Nelson Mandela included on the terrorist list that was a pillar in his intimidation and FEAR MONGERING? Show the forum how desperate you are, Bryan. It's slightly satisfying to witness the Bush deadenders as scurrying sophists at this late date. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED FIVE YEARS NOW!!!

The "Amazing Events".................sir...................that you cite here................in my opinion only.............is much to do about nothing and only the tired chirping of a Bush deadender. Why don't you go to some of the threads I've started and respond with intelligence to the content, avoiding the ad hominem energies that mark your messageboard habits? Start with Nelson Mandela listed as a "terrorist" by the Bush cult.............do you know who Nelson Mandella is? Surely the forum can benefit as it's intended if you rise to the decency that is expected of normal people. Think about it.

It has long gotten BEYOND a contemporary dark comedy..........our nation and our embarassment.........look for your local Bush "DEADENDER" and give "thanks" for this ever growing lunacy of American hypocrisy and paranoia. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04...st_N.htm?csp=34 WASHINGTON — Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it. The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit. Because of this, Rice told a Senate committee recently, her department has to issue waivers for ANC members to travel to the USA. "This is a country with which we now have excellent relations, South Africa, but it's frankly a rather embarrassing matter that I still have to waive in my own counterpart, the foreign minister of South Africa, not to mention the great leader Nelson Mandela," Rice said. Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, is pushing a bill that would remove current and former ANC leaders from the watch lists. Supporters hope to get it passed before Mandela's 90th birthday July 18. "What an indignity," Berman said. "The ANC set an important example: It successfully made the change from armed struggle to peace. We should celebrate the transformation." In 1990, Mandela was freed after 27 years in prison for crimes committed during the struggle against Apartheid, a repressive regime that subjugated black South Africans. In 1994, he was elected South Africa's first black president. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., called ANC members' inclusion on watch lists a "bureaucratic snafu" and pledged to fix the problem. Members of other groups deemed a terrorist threat, such as Hamas, also are on the watch lists. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says "common sense" suggests Mandela should be removed. He says the issue "raises a troubling and difficult debate about what groups are considered terrorists and which are not." When ANC members apply for visas to the USA, they are flagged for questioning and need a waiver to be allowed in the country. In 2002, former ANC chairman Tokyo Sexwale was denied a visa. In 2007, Barbara Masekela, South Africa's ambassador to the United States from 2002 to 2006, was denied a visa to visit her ailing cousin and didn't get a waiver until after the cousin had died, Berman's legislation says. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

Yes Bush Deadenders.......it's far too much to read surely cutting into your Rish Limpie masturbation time.........so therefore............. THE FOLLOWING MUST BE LIES!!!! (you could bleat something about the New York Times being anti-American and let it go at that, no?) http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...iams/index.html Wednesday April 30, 2008 07:00 EDT Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story It has now been more than ten days since the New York Times exposed the Pentagon's domestic propaganda program involving retired generals and, still, not a single major news network has even mentioned the story to their viewers, let alone responded to the numerous questions surrounding their own behavior. This steadfast blackout occurs despite the fact that the Pentagon propaganda program almost certainly violates numerous federal laws; both Democratic presidential candidates sternly denounced the Pentagon's conduct; and Congressional inquiries are already underway, all of which forced the Pentagon to announce that it suspended its program. Still, there has not been a peep from the major news networks at the center of the storm, the integrity of whose reporting on the Iraq war is directly implicated by this story. Even establishment media defender Howard Kurtz called their ongoing failure to cover this story "pathetic." Like Fox and CBS, NBC News outright refused to answer any questions about the allegations when asked by the NYT's David Bartsow, and its prime time anchor, Brian Williams, has delivered seven broadcasts since the story was published and has not uttered a word to NBC's viewers about any of it. Yesterday, I wrote about an entry on Williams' blog -- which he calls "The Daily Nightly" -- in which Williams found the time to mock one frivolous cultural puff piece after the next in the Sunday edition of the NYT, even as he still had refused even to acknowledge the expose in last Sunday's NYT that calls into serious question the truthfulness and reliability of his "journalism." After I wrote about Williams' blog item yesterday, his blog was deluged with commenters angrily demanding to know why he has failed to address the NYT expose. In response, Williams wrote a new blog item last night in which he purports -- finally -- to respond to the story, and I can't recommend highly enough that it be read by anyone wanting to understand how our establishment journalist class thinks and acts. The essence of Williams' response: he did absolutely nothing wrong. Nor did any of the military analysts used by NBC News. Nor did his network. These are all honest, patriotic men whose integrity is beyond reproach. Here's but a sampling of Williams' defense: A few of you correctly noted I’ve yet to respond to the recent Times front-page article on the military analysts employed by the television networks, including this one. I read the article with great interest. I've worked with two men since I've had this job -- both retired, heavily-decorated U.S. Army four-star Generals -- Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey. As I'm sure is obvious to even a casual viewer, I quickly entered into a close friendship with both men. . . . All I can say is this: these two guys never gave what I considered to be the party line. They were tough, honest critics of the U.S. military effort in Iraq. If you've had any exposure to retired officers of that rank (and we've not had any five-star Generals in the modern era) then you know: these men are passionate patriots. In my dealings with them, they were also honest brokers. . . . At no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers. I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that. Williams argues that the two retired Generals whom he identified in particular -- Downing and McCaffrey -- voiced "harsh criticism of the Rumsfeld Pentagon and the war effort." As proof, he cites a McCaffrey quote from 2006 -- more then 3 years after we invaded Iraq -- in which McCaffrey said there was a civil war there and that "it's a very bad situation, and it's getting worse." He also said Downing was angry that we didn't use more troops for the invasion. That is the sum and substance of Williams' response to allegations that these analysts were presented as "independent" despite having multiple political and financial ties which negated their independence. There is no indication that he has any plans to tell his viewers about the story. And he seems to think that this smug, dismissive response resolves the questions surrounding the behavior of NBC News. It doesn't. If fact, Williams' response -- and his citation to these two specific retired Generals -- raises far more questions than it answers. * * * * * Both McCaffrey and Downing were about as far from "independent" as a news analyst could possibly be. On November 15, 2002, a press release was issued announcing the formation of something called "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," which was devoted "to advocat[ing] freedom and democracy in Iraq." Its list of 25 members was filled to the brim with the standard cast of war-hungry neocons -- including Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, Leon Wieseltier, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Eliot Cohen, and anti-Muslim "scholar" Bernard Lewis. Both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing -- the two extremely independent "news sources" hailed yesterday by Brian Williams -- were two of its 25 founding members. On the day of its formation, the group announced that they would meet later that day with then-National Security Adviser Condolleeza Rice to discuss Iraq. The group's President was quoted in the Press Release as follows: "We believe it is time to confront the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime by liberating the Iraqi people." Here was its stated purpose: The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq will engage in educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny. The Committee is committed to work beyond the liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy and the establishment of political pluralism, democratic institutions, and the rule of law. So this was a group devoted to building domestic support in the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq through so-called "educational and advocacy efforts." And NBC News then hired both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing as supposedly "independent analysts" to opine to NBC's viewers about the war, and did so without ever once disclosing this affiliation to their viewers, without ever disclosing that they were dedicated to propagandizing on behalf of the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq. Beyond their ideological affiliations that negated their "independence," both McCaffrey and Downing had substantial ties to the defense industry which gave them strong financial incentives to advocate for the war. Worse, these ties were detailed all the way back in April of 2003 by The Nation, in an article entitled "TV's Conflicted Experts: But some of these ex-generals also have ideological or financial stakes in the war. Many hold paid advisory board and executive positions at defense companies and serve as advisers for groups that promoted an invasion of Iraq. Their offscreen commitments raise questions about whether they are influenced by more than just "a lifetime of experience and objectivity"--in the words of Lieut. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a military analyst for NBC News--as they explain the risks of this war to the American people. McCaffrey and his NBC colleague Col. Wayne Downing, who reports nightly from Kuwait, are both on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a Washington-based lobbying group formed last October to bolster public support for a war. Its stated mission is to "engage in educational advocacy efforts to mobilize US and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein," and among its targets are the US and European media. The group is chaired by Bruce Jackson, former vice president of defense giant Lockheed Martin (manufacturer of the F-117 Nighthawk, the F-16 Fighting Falcon and other aircraft in use in Iraq), and includes such neocon luminaries as former Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle. Downing has also served as an unpaid lobbyist and adviser to the Iraqi National Congress, an Administration-backed (and bankrolled) opposition group that stands to profit from regime change in Iraq. NBC News has yet to disclose those or other involvements that give McCaffrey a vested interest in Operation Iraqi Freedom. McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division in the Gulf War, is now on the board of Mitretek, Veritas Capital and two Veritas companies, Raytheon Aerospace and Integrated Defense Technologies--all of which have multimillion-dollar government defense contracts. Despite that, IDT is floundering -- its stock price has fallen by half since March 2002 -- a situation that one stock analyst says war could remedy. Since IDT is a specialist in tank upgrades, the company stands to benefit significantly from a massive ground war. The same article details that Downing had many of the same problems, including the fact that he sat on the "board of directors at Metal Storm Ltd., a ballistics-technology company that has contracts with US and Australian defense departments." None of this was ever disclosed to NBC's viewers -- not once -- as McCaffrey and Downing were paraded out by Williams and other NBC reporters as "independent" military analysts touting the need to invade and occupy Iraq. * * * * * In fact, rather than disclose these obviously relevant allegiances, Williams -- throughout 2003 and well after -- presented McCaffrey to his then-CNBC audience as the definitively objective, independent analyst, with introductions like this one, from the November 24, 2003 broadcast, as extremely typical: WILLIAMS: Retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey joins us from Seattle tonight. He earned three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, two Distinguished Service Crosses, was a division commander during the first Gulf War. These days, he's a professor at West Point and an NBC News military analyst, and I know him well enough to know that he's going to want to say a word here, General, and please feel free, about the value of sergeant majors in the U.S. Army who are as talented and as beloved as that man. GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY, NBC MILITARY ANALYST: Well, you know, you're right on the money, Brian. As always, there was not a word to NBC's viewers that this "NBC Military analyst" was on the Board of Advisers of a neocon group devoted to persuading Americans of the need to invade and occupy Iraq, nor a word about his financial investments in the policies he was advocating. Just look at the completely deceitful way that Williams presented McCaffrey repeatedly, and the type of "independent analysis" to which NBC viewers were consequently subjected. From the September 8, 2003 broadcast: WILLIAMS: We are joined now from Washington by retired four-star general Barry McCaffrey, one of the foremost military experts currently in civilian life. He was a division commander during the first Gulf War, now a professor at West Point, and an NBC News military analyst. General, let's start with what Senator Harkin just said. You were far from a protester of Vietnam, you were on the other end of it as a combatant. He said it smells like Vietnam, so do the bills coming in for it. Do you concur at all? GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY: No, not at all. I think there could be two inept metaphors in Vietnam applied to either Central America, Iraq, or any of the current crises we're facing. That was a very different, externally supported war by a homogeneous people who were essentially on the tail end of a struggle against colonialism, using communism as a vector. My gosh, this is nothing like that. I think Iraq -- By the way, just to get to the heart of the matter, Brian, I actually think the president's speech was an item of tremendous political courage. He has now faced up to -- what I think he was getting from Secretary Rumsfeld was war on the cheap. And now he's saying, We got to succeed, we got to have resources, forces, U.N. legitimacy. This is a step in the right direction . . . . But we better stay the course, or we're in trouble.. Here is the dialogue those two shared on Mission Accomplished Day -- May 1, 2003: WILLIAMS: With us tonight to look back at the military operation and perhaps what today means as a media event and a significant event in the lives of the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen is retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey who, of course, commanded the 24th Mechanized during the first Gulf War. He is an NBC News analyst on military affairs. General, let's start with today. The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military. General BARRY McCAFFREY (US Army): Oh, yeah, I think it's a huge shot in the arm to the morale of--of the entire armed forces, never mind to remind Americans why we pay for these 10-carrier battle groups. I mean, this is a -- just an enormous source of military power and the ability to influence events sometimes without fighting. In the weeks leading up to the invasion, McCaffrey was frequently on numerous NBC shows, including Williams', presented as an independent expert. On the February 18, 2003 edition of Williams' CNBC show, he was on with fellow war-supporter Michael O'Hanlon -- that was "balance" -- to talk about the risks of the war, and McCaffrey said: Well, I think that the Iraqis have no good options, and so what we're going to do, we will encounter chemical weapons. It will be abject misery. Some will be killed by them. It won't change the military operation. The biological weapons we hope will be deterred by some pretty strong background threats. I think what we're going to have to do is go in and take down 60,000 Republican Guard troops in stiff urban combat in Baghdad and Tikrit, and that's going to look, at rifle company commander level, like World War II for about five days. I could go on for pages printing similar exchanges Williams had with McCaffrey throughout 2003. The same is true for Downing, who was repeatedly presented to NBC viewers as an independent analyst without his multiple political and financial affiliations ever once being disclosed (Months before the war began, in November, McCaffrey was a guest on an MSNBC show to tout the launch of the new pro-war group; when McCaffrey was presented as an independent analyst throughout 2003 and beyond, that connection was never mentioned). It's true, as Williams points out as though it is exculpatory, that -- like Bill Kristol and plenty of other hard-core war supporters -- McCaffrey wanted more U.S. troops in Iraq. He even signed a 2005 letter from PNAC -- along with the likes of Kristol, the mighty Kagan Brothers, Max Boot, Frank Gaffney, Michael O'Hanlon and Peter Beinart -- demanding that more troops be deployed to Iraq (the Kagans, O'Hanlon and Beinart -- despite their relative youth -- were all unavailable for duty). It really ought to go without saying by now that advocating more troops for the War hardly made one a "war critic" nor did it demonstrate independence from the Bush administration's propaganda campaign for the War. To the contrary, the fact that both McCaffrey and Downing had financial ties to the defense industry which would stand to profit from policies entailing more defense spending further calls into question their independence, rather than resolves those questions. As The Nation reported back in 2003: McCaffrey has recently emerged as the most outspoken military critic of Rumsfeld's approach to the war, but his primary complaint is that "armor and artillery don't count" enough. In McCaffrey's recent MSNBC commentary, he exclaimed enthusiastically, "Thank God for the Abrams tank and . . . the Bradley fighting vehicle," and added for good measure that the "war isn't over until we've got a tank sitting on top of Saddam's bunker." In March alone, IDT [on whose Board of Directors McCaffrey sat] received more than $14 million worth of contracts relating to Abrams and Bradley machinery parts and support hardware. At the very least, NBC viewers ought to have been told of the numerous, substantial ties which these "independent" military analysts had. * * * * * What makes all of this even more astounding -- and what makes Williams' glib dismissal of these issues yesterday all the more indefensible -- is that all of these conflicts and all of this deceit was well-known long before the NYT article added more details. As I've repeatedly noted, concerns over the use by news networks of retired Generals masquerading as "independent analysts" were raised for years in multiple venues -- including by the NYT and by the astoundingly prescient Colman McCarthy in The Washington Post, and the networks simply ignored those concerns, marching along with their pro-war parade of military analysts. But far worse, the specific, undisclosed conflicts of both McCaffrey and Downing -- the two Generals cited by Williams to prove NBC did nothing wrong -- were disclosed more than four years ago by The Nation. And there is no way that NBC and Williams can claim not to have known about them, since The Nation described those ties as specifically as could be. Did NBC ask the Generals about these ties? Did they consider disclosing them to their viewers? Did the undislcosed ties violate NBC News policy? Does NBC have policies now to prevent this from happening again? Who knows? NBC refuses to comment on any of this. In fact, it appears that NBC was informed of these specific conflicts by The Nation four years ago. From The Nation article: The networks don't seem too concerned about what the analysts do on their own time. "We are employing them for their military expertise, not their political views," Elena Nachmanoff, vice president of talent development at NBC News, told The Nation. She says that NBC's military experts play an influential role behind the scenes, briefing executive producers and holding seminars for staffers that provide "texture for both on-air pieces and background." Defense contracts, she adds, are "not our interest." That was just false. As I noted last week after I interviewed CNN's former anchor Aaron Brown, who offered a similar defense, these retired Generals -- certainly including McCaffrey -- repeatedly argued in support for the war and the ongoing occupation, not merely commented upon military tactics. But to NBC, the substantial financial interests of their "independent" military experts to advocate for the war were simply "not their interest." Of course, it's not all that surprising that NBC News doesn't consider these conflicts worth noting given that, as a subsidiary of General Electric, a corporation that also profits greatly from increased defense spending and wars, NBC News is plagued by the very same conflicts in its reporting on the Government's military policies. * * * * * Just consider what is going on here. The core credibility of war reporting by Brian Williams and NBC News has been severely undermined by a major NYT expose. That story involves likely illegal behavior by the Pentagon, in which NBC News appears to have been complicit, resulting in the deceitful presentation of highly biased and conflicted individuals as "independent" news analysts. Yet they refuse to tell their viewers about any of this, and refuse to address any of the questions that have been raised. More amazingly still, when Brian Williams is forced by a virtual mob on his blog yesterday finally to address this issue -- something he really couldn't avoid doing given that, the day before, he found time to analyze seven other NYT articles -- Williams cited McCaffrey and Downing as proof that they did nothing wrong, and insists that his and their credibility simply ought to be beyond reproach because they are good, patriotic men. But those two individuals in particular had all kinds of ties to the Government, the defense industry, and ideological groups which gave them vested interests in vigorous pro-war advocacy -- ties which NBC News knew about and failed to disclose, all while presenting these individuals to their millions of viewers as "independent." Is there anyone who thinks that behavior is anything other than deeply corrupt? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

DAZZLING RETORT!!!! HERE'S ANOTHER MYTH................ http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5737726.html Former workers accuse employees of improper activity, including the stealing of weapons, artwork and gold Allegations fly at KBR hearing WASHINGTON — KBR employees working in Iraq stole weapons, artwork and even gold to make spurs for cowboy boots, two former company workers told Senate Democrats on Monday. Appearing before a Democrats-only panel looking into allegations of contracting abuses in Iraq, the witnesses accused their former co-workers of widespread improper activity. KBR spokeswoman Heather Browne said the company would not comment at length because the claims are part of ongoing lawsuits. "The witnesses who testified today raised claims that KBR has previously addressed. The government has reviewed the claims and refused to join lawsuits asserting them," Browne said. Linda Warren, a 50-year-old Abilene woman who worked as a laundry foreman and recreation director for the Houston-based contracting giant in Iraq, told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee Monday that some of her American colleagues doing construction work in Iraqi palaces and municipal buildings took woodcarvings, tapestries and crystal "and even melted down gold to make spurs for cowboy boots." Her allegations could not be independently verified. Warren leveled her allegations in early 2004 after being reprimanded by a supervisor for giving water to Iraqi workers laboring in a sweltering laundry building when their own water supply was undrinkable. Warren said the supervisor reminded her she had signed a confidentiality agreement and then threatened her by suggesting an American woman "wouldn't last very long on the streets of Baghdad." That evening, with company managers present, she called KBR's ethics hot line in Houston to report her allegations. She eventually was escorted out of Baghdad by company security after KBR officials intercepted a threatening e-mail, Warren said. Frank Cassaday, a former KBR ice plant operator, told lawmakers that a KBR foreman tried to take military equipment, including two rocket launchers, detonators and ammunition. When he confronted the foreman, Cassaday said, "he told me to mind my own business." Cassaday then told the camp manager. A military investigation confirmed his allegations, Cassaday said, but he did not elaborate on how the matter was resolved. A third worker, Barry Halley, a former security manager for CAPE Environmental Management, alleged that after raising complaints with CAPE management, he was held in a room for several days by private security guards. Les Flynn, Atlanta-based CAPE's chief operating officer, said that while some of Halley's allegations Monday were new, the company's insurance company had investigated his allegations. "It appears they were found to be untrue," Flynn said. The witnesses appeared at the Democratic Policy Committee's 13th hearing on contracting activities in Iraq. While Congress has had some bipartisan hearings regarding KBR, many of the allegations have come from this series of Democrats-only sessions. Congressional investigations of KBR's activities in Iraq are almost invariably colored by politics, in no small part because Vice President Dick Cheney once headed KBR's former parent company, Halliburton Co. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Army Sustainment Command reaffirmed its selection of KBR to participate in the 10-year logistical support contract valued at up to $150 billion. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!

I recall when Bill O'Reilly said categorically on his radio spot that the BBC is "anti-American".............I can only imagine how many dumbed-down Americans swallowed that down to the spleen............ MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

Mr. President........we know our duty.......live and die for government lies, feed our children to the military, honor corporate gluttony and the dual standards that make you, Mr. Bush, our purpose for existing.......we eagerly stand in line for the privilege........and please know we want you for a THIRD term.......perhaps we can make a few changes to the rules and you will remain our emperor.........please? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_..._accomplished_4 White House admits fault on 'Mission Accomplished' banner By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 1 hour, 53 minutes ago WASHINGTON - The White House said Wednesday that President Bush has paid a price for the "Mission Accomplished" banner that was flown in triumph five years ago but later became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly war in Iraq. Thursday is the fifth anniversary of Bush's dramatic landing in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier homebound from the war. The USS Abraham Lincoln had launched thousands of airstrikes on Iraq. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," Bush said at the time. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on." The "Mission Accomplished" banner was prominently displayed above him — a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy. After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the "Mission Accomplished" phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq. Bush, in October 2003, disavowed any connection with the "Mission Accomplished" message. He said the White House had nothing to do with the banner; a spokesman later said the ship's crew asked for the sign and the White House staff had it made by a private vendor. "President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said `mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year." She said what is important now is "how the president would describe the fight today. It's been a very tough month in Iraq, but we are taking the fight to the enemy." At least 49 U.S. troops died in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month since September when 65 U.S. troops died. Now in its sixth year, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of at least 4,061 members of the U.S. military. Only the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the war in Afghanistan (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) have engaged America longer. Bush, in a speech earlier this month, said that "while this war is difficult, it is not endless." ZIG HEIL MEIN CHIMPFUHRER!!!!!

"When it rains, it pours." It should be absolutely clear to those with the courage and wisdom to SEE the evidence that the U.S. government is a gargantuan malignancy that is run by parasitic lunatics operating as a cult and essentially out of control with the U.S. military as its premier deviate. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_...l939.7abbFg.3QA Investigators: Millions in Iraq contracts never finished By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 17 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Millions of dollars of lucrative Iraq reconstruction contracts were never finished because of excessive delays, poor performance or other factors, including failed projects that are being falsely described by the U.S. government as complete, federal investigators say. The audit released Sunday by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, provides the latest snapshot of an uneven reconstruction effort that has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion. It also comes as several lawmakers have said they want the Iraqis to pick up more of the cost of reconstruction. The special IG's review of 47,321 reconstruction projects worth billions of dollars found that at least 855 contracts were terminated by U.S. officials before their completion, primarily because of unforeseen factors such as violence and excessive costs. About 112 of those agreements were ended specifically because of the contractors' actual or anticipated poor performance. In addition, the audit said many reconstruction projects were being described as complete or otherwise successful when they were not. In one case, the U.S. Agency for International Development contracted with Bechtel Corp. in 2004 to construct a $50 million children's hospital in Basra, only to "essentially terminate" the project in 2006 because of monthslong delays. But rather than terminate the project, U.S. officials modified the contract to change the scope of the work. As a result, a U.S. database of Iraq reconstruction contracts shows the project as complete "when in fact the hospital was only 35 percent complete when work was stopped," said investigators in describing the practice of "descoping" as frequent. "Descoping is an appropriate process but does mask problem projects to the extent they occur," the audit states. Responding, USAID in the report said it disagreed that its descoping of the hospital project was "effectively a contract termination," but that it had changed the work because of escalating costs and security problems. Mark Tokola, the director of the Iraq transition assistance office, also responded that the database the IG's office reviewed of Iraq reconstruction contracts was incomplete. Bowen's office said its review was preliminary and that it planned follow-up reviews to investigate descoping more closely. Investigators said they were also looking into whether contractors whose projects were terminated by the U.S. government due to inadequate performance might have been awarded new contracts later despite their poor records. Investigators said the database they reviewed lacked full data on projects such as those done by USAID, the State Department, and those completed before 2006. But they said the figures cited in the report offered a baseline in terms of unfinished Iraq reconstruction contracts. "Adding contract terminations from these (other) sources would certainly raise the number of terminated projects," the report states. The audit comes amid renewed focus in recent months on potential abuse in contracting government-wide, such as Iraq reconstruction. Last year, congressional investigators said as much as $10 billion — or one in six dollars — charged by U.S. contractors for Iraq reconstruction were questionable or unsupported, and warned that significantly more taxpayer money was at risk. In recent weeks, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has been working with Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, on legislation that would restrict future reconstruction dollars to loans instead of grants; require that Baghdad pay for fuel used by American troops and take over U.S. payments to predominantly Sunni fighters in the Awakening movement. Danielle Brian, executive director of the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, said the latest audit report points to significant U.S. taxpayer waste in current reconstruction efforts. "The report paints a depressing picture of money being poured into failed Iraq reconstruction projects — contractors are killed, projects are blown up just before being completed, or the contractor just stops doing the work," she said.

definitely BULGEFACE!

Yeah, I wrote it myself..........all night..........every word!!

Thank you deadender, for taking the time to comment on North Dakota U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan's C-SPAN video on out of control fraud via the Pentagon which is the topic of this thread. You are a mighty champion of intellectual prowess and social decency we may be sure!