A Florida hit man. A high-powered lobbyist. A pair of disgraced Republican congressmen. The ingredients for a potboiler novel? No—this is what passes for political news in the age of Abramoff. In a trial scheduled to start in early February, Brian Cavanaugh, an assistant state attorney in Broward County, Fla. is prosecuting three men for the murder of former SunCruz Casino… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (61)Page 1 of 1 pagesfeb. is going to be a good month for jon stewart. This is going to be great for the nov. elections.
WASHINGTON A new poll suggests most Americans don’t approve of the way President Bush is handling his job.The latest Time magazine poll puts Bush’s approval rating at 41 percent—that’s off 12 points from this time last year.
The poll finds more than half disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy. And two in three disapprove of the job he’s doing to keep the cost of government down.
On Iraq, the poll finds 60 percent of those surveyed disapprove of the way Bush is handling the war. And people are split on how well he’s waging the war on terrorism.
But there’s some good news for Republicans. According to Time, 57 percent of those surveyed haven’t been following the case of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. this is going to change in feb.
Posted by brian28 on Jan 30, 2006 at 7:19 PM A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Bush with a lower approval rating than any postwar president at the start of his sixth year in office—with the exception of Richard M. Nixon, who was crippled by Watergate.
Bush’s approval rating now stands at 42 percent, down from 46 percent at the beginning of the year, although still three percentage points higher than the low point of his presidency last November.
The poll also shows that the public prefers the direction Democrats in Congress would take the country as opposed to the path set by the president, that Americans trust Democrats over Republicans to address the country’s biggest problems and that they strongly favor Democrats over Republicans in their vote for the House.
Posted by brian28 on Jan 30, 2006 at 7:24 PM Brian,
Have you taken statistics?
My guess is you have not, because if you had you would know you can manipulate any poll to get the answer that you want.
A poll is just the media attempting to create news.
The ONLY poll that matters is election day!
As to this article, if they did the crime they should do the time.
Posted by think4yourself on Jan 30, 2006 at 8:19 PM Wow, it will be interesting to see how this murder trial implicates Abramoff and his “business associate” Adam Kidan. That money Kidan paid to the Moscatiello family sure looks like a down payment for an assassination, but hopefully the trial will find the unadulterated truth.
I bet Bush is wishing he never had SIX pictures taken of him with Abramoff. I hope Ney goes down in flames too, as he had very close “relations” with Abramoff. Man, and Clinton was crucified for getting a bj!
Posted by Liberal on Jan 30, 2006 at 8:42 PM Clinton was “crucified” for lying under oath, during a sexual harrasment case brought against him.
As for the pictures, every politician will take many pictures with you if you give them money.
Posted by think4yourself on Jan 30, 2006 at 11:12 PM What Clinton did with Lewinsky was consensual. How can you force someone to give you a blowjob? There are lies and then there are lies, think4yourself. What Clinton did was not worthy of impeachment. What Nixon and Reagan did, on the other hand, qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanors. Reagan pleaded ignorance about Iran-Contra, so either he was too out of the loop as President to know what was happening (not a good trait) or he was lying. I believe the latter. The scandal went beyond Ollie North. Bush and his clones in Congress are in deep cahoots with an unsavory character in Jack Abramoff. Rob Ney will be the first to fall. Furthermore, Bush should be criminally investigated for violating the War Crimes Act of 1996 and misleading Congress into war.
Posted by Liberal on Jan 31, 2006 at 1:59 AM LIBERAL,
I DID NOT SAY IT WAS NOT CONSENUAL. CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH ABOUT IT IN ANOTHER TRAIL RELATED TO ANOTHER WOMAN! SOMETIMES IT SEEMS YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR HISTORY.
OUR SYSTEM CAN ONLY WORK IF PEOPLE DO NOT GET AWAY WITH LYING IN COURT. THAT IS THE POINT!
As for me I could care less about the BJ, but the minute you lie about a BJ, with an intern, to get out of sexually harrasing others, I am going to say something.
As for Bush lying, or as you say misleading, he only said the same thing other DEMOCRATS said up until around 2002, can we say mid-term election.
Now if he lies under oath, BRING HIM DOWN!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by think4yourself on Jan 31, 2006 at 2:21 AM However, what Democrats said has absolutely nothing to do with whether Bush and his administration officials distorted the intelligence and misled Congress, the United Nations and the American people. Just because some Democrats agreed that Iraq had WMD and posed a threat, that does not prove that Bush and his officials didn’t lie or distort the intelligence. It is not a simple issue of whether or not Iraq had WMD. The administration made many false claims that Democrats did not.
How many Democrats said, as Cheney did, that Iraq had “reconstituted nuclear weapons”?
How many Democrats said Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger? (refuted by the CIA)
How many Democrats said the aluminum tubes could only be used for nuclear weapons? (refuted by the CIA)
How many Democrats said, as Bush did, that Iraq had a “growing fleet” of “manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons” in the United States? This was debunked by the Air Force, and ridiculed by George Tenet in Woodward’s book, Plan of Attack.
How many Democrats said Saddam harbored Zarqawi and other al-Qaeda members (a claim debunked by the CIA) and was allied with the Ansar al-Islam terrorist camp in Northern Iraq? (a camp that was located in the no-fly zone, outside Saddam’s control, and had stated its goal to overthrow Saddam.
How many Democrats now al-Libi, one of the Bush administration’s key informants, had been discredited in 2002?
How many Democrats said Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague in 2001 to plan the 9/11 attacks? Cheney charged this as late as 2004 even though it had been thoroughly debunked by the FBI.Furthermore, Clinton’s lie was immaterial to his duty to perform his Constitutional duties as President. With Bush, it is an entirely different story. All of his impeachable offenses are entirely related to his duties as President.
Posted by Liberal on Jan 31, 2006 at 2:30 AM Here is what Vladimir Putin had to say about Iraq in October 2002: “Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress.”
It was clear that either Bush or Putin was lying. Turns out Putin was right. So Bush was wrong, but did he have access to information that Putin was unaware of? Doubtful. Russia is MUCH closer to Iraq than the U.S. and would without question be more sensitive to any possible threat emanating from that nation.
Posted by Liberal on Jan 31, 2006 at 2:34 AM How many millions of dollars has Clinton had to come off of, no pun intended, because of his dealing with women working under him, again no pun intended.
Now I might take some heat for this but, I am guessing liberal is a girl and I can not understand how she defends this guy. He is the definition of what feminists HATE about men. And I will leave it with another liberal group doing the hating. So remember class when you have a big D next to your name, then its all good to hate, ask opel.
Posted by think4yourself on Jan 31, 2006 at 2:39 AM I am no girl. 6’1, 245 lbs of pure midwest muscle, think4yourself. Assumptions only make an a$$ out of oneself, do you agree?
Posted by Liberal on Jan 31, 2006 at 2:40 AM Putin also said, many times, Saddam was trying to train terrorists to attack us.
I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, BUSH LIES UNDER OATH HE IS GOING DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by think4yourself on Jan 31, 2006 at 2:42 AM So if he did these things to a woman you know, would you be fine? As a 6’1, 245 lbs of pure midwest muscle male.
Posted by think4yourself on Jan 31, 2006 at 2:45 AM where is tina1 she is good for laugh. I guess we have think4yourself now.
Posted by brian28 on Jan 31, 2006 at 4:06 AM look under bush statistics
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002770594_webecon29.html
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060127/NEWS06/601270336In nov. elections can republicans scare you into voting for them again? demos will get you attacked again.
It’s the only thing they have going for them. Forget the scandals, the war, the debt,katrina, the neo-cons will keep you safe.
Posted by brian28 on Jan 31, 2006 at 4:23 AM Tina’s currently pre-occupied with the Bauer thread, trying to prove that the Jeb Bush reduced the crime rate in Florida.
Posted by Major Major on Jan 31, 2006 at 1:09 PM Brian,
I thought I explained I was not a “neocon”.
I will not be voting for a republican or democrat.
Neither group cares about what is best, only about gaining and keeping the power they have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like Liberal said assuming will make an arse out of you.
It did me!
Posted by think4yourself on Jan 31, 2006 at 3:11 PM You won’t be voting “for a republican or democrat” because you’re not an American citizen, you un-American “arse”.
Posted by Major Major on Jan 31, 2006 at 6:37 PM Crimes of George Bush Pt I
Wars of Aggression Indictment
Count 1: The Bush administration authorized a war of aggression against Iraq.
Count 2: The Bush administrations authorized conduct of the war that involved the commission of “war crimes.”
Count 3: The Bush administration authorized the occupation of Iraq involving, and continuing to involve, the commission of “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity” and other illegal acts.The invasion, occupation and torture of prisoners are clear violations of existing International Law, including the following:
1) Customary international law;
2) United Nations Charter, 59 Stat. 1031, 3 Bevans 1153 (1945);
3) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A(iii), (U.N. Doc A/810 (1948);
4) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2220A(xxi) 21 U.N. Doc., GAOR Supp. (No 16) at 52, U.N. Doc A/6316 (1966);
5) Geneva Conventions of 1949, Conventions I-IV, August 12, 1949, Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, opened for signature, December 12, 1977;
6) Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. Doc, GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984);
7) International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (1966);
8) Declaration on the Protection of All Persons From Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 3452, 30 U.N. Doc., GAOR Supp. (No 34) at 91, U.N. Doc. A/10034 (1976);
9) United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, U.N. Doc. A/CONF/611, ANNEX I., ESC Res. 663(c), 24 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No 1), at 11, U.N. Doc. E/3048 (1957), amended E.S.C. Res. 2076, 62 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1), at 35, U.N. Doc. E/5988 (1977);
10) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, November 4, 1950, 213 UNTS. 221;
11) The Nuremberg Principles [1];
12) Common Law of the United States of America, and;
13) Statutes and common law of the State of New York, including, but not limited to assault and battery, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Count 1As part of an illegal doctrine of “preemptive war,” based on deliberate and conscious lies, and with no legitimate claim of self defense, the Bush administration planned, prepared and waged the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter, the 1949 Geneva Convention [2] and the Nuremberg Principles.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 31, 2006 at 7:12 PM cont’d
Count 2
The Bush administrations authorized conduct of the war that involved the commission of “war crimes,” including by not limited to:
The targeting of Iraqi leaders in “decapitation” strikes, including prior to the official outbreak of the war included the following:Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure by intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centers, residential neighborhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities, as well as intense and indiscriminate military operations against many cities and towns causing massive civilian casualties.
Using disproportionate force and weapon systems with indiscriminate effects, such as cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted uranium (DU), and chemical weapons.
Using DU munitions with devastating long-term effects on human beings and the environment.
Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. (Geneva Convention)
Seizure of, destruction of willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion (Mosques), charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic documents and works of art and science.
Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. (Geneva Convention)
Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, and buildings.
Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, and devastation not justified by military necessity, for example, the wanton destruction of ancient Babylon, where U.S. troops are based with large numbers of troops and material, and the destruction and looting of ancient texts, artifacts, art, and the cultural history of one of the most ancient civilizations in the world.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 31, 2006 at 7:15 PM Count 3
The Bush administration authorized the occupation of Iraq involving, and continuing to involve, the commission of “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity” and other illegal acts, including but not limited to:
The invasion, occupation and imposition of a U.S.-controlled provisional authority has violated the right of self-determination of the Iraqi people by its decrees, practices, imposition of an interim government, managed elections, and administered constitution-making process, violating Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (1966) which states: “(1) All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Unlawful attacks, including assassinations, summary executions, murders, disappearances, kidnappings and torture, including using deadly violence against peaceful protestors.
Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment.
Unlawful detention and torture, including by U.S. military personnel and by paramilitary civilian forces operating anonymously, including widespread, repeated and systematic use of torture and degrading treatment of Iraqi civilian and military personnel detained in prison facilities or covertly transferred to foreign countries known for torture and severe prison conditions, practices which are unconditionally prohibited by international law.
Failure to provide public order and safety, ensure vital services, or to protect Iraqi health and life, including by authorizing, ordering and condoning the systematic destruction of economic, social, cultural, medical, educational, governmental and diplomatic resources, properties and facilities throughout Iraq.
Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded and where many of their civil rights have been lost.
Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied, including fundamental changes in Iraq’s economic structure, including the right of private foreign investors to retain 100% of any profits made in Iraq.
Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. (Geneva Convention)
Attack, or bombardment, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings.
Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. (Geneva Convention)
Willfully depriving a prisoner of war or a civilian of the rights of fair and regular trial. (Geneva Convention)
Willfully devastating the environment, including through the use of DU munitions.
Failing to protect humanity’s rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq
Systematically utilizing, controlling, directing, manipulating, misinforming and restricting press and media coverage and deliberately presenting false and misleading reports to obtain support for U.S. military and political and actions; and to deprive the American people of knowledge essential to develop an informed opinion which is essential to democratic processes and elections.
Ordering young people, American soldiers in particular, to commit terrible acts that will haunt them, their families and their communities. Their acts of torture of Iraqi detainees, and the killing of women, children, injured people, doctors, nurses, and the bombing of places of worship and hospitals will not only brutalize these soldiers individually, but will further the violence and militarization of American culture.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 31, 2006 at 7:16 PM That covers War of Aggression.
Thinky want more?
Other indictments include:
[url=“http://tinyurl.com/d742y”] Indictment on Torture and Detention
Indictment on Global Climate
Indictment on Global Health
Indictment on Hurricane Katrina [/url]You can download them for yourself
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 31, 2006 at 7:25 PM WOW….That was superb luminous beauty. Good work.
Maybe you listed it but the U.S. violated the Chemical Weapons Ban by using napalm in its assaults on Fallujah, which is corroborated by first-hand testimony of Iraqis and independent journalists.
Posted by Liberal on Jan 31, 2006 at 11:02 PM Major,
Born in Seattle currently live in FLORIDA.
I am only an arse for assuming something about Liberal.
Call me some more names, its fitting for this site liberals to do that.
Posted by think4yourself on Jan 31, 2006 at 11:54 PM Conservatives own Iraq - not Democrats, not Liberals.
Conservatives own Jack Abramoff and Ken Lay,
Conservatives own Privatization.
Ken Starr had his chance to press criminal charges
against Bill Clinton, when Clinton left office.Ken Starr gave this reason for not pressing criminal
charges, he said it would quote: send a wrong message.Ken Starr gave Bill Clinton a pass - chose not to press
criminal perjury charges - Ken Starr thought Bill Clinton
was a terrible president, disagreed strongly as the
chief lawyer for Brown and Williamson Tobacco
against Bill Clintons anti-tobacco lawsuit which
resulted in a multi-billion dollar settlement.
Posted by christ_burns_2yearolds on Jan 31, 2006 at 11:59 PM First I would like to say IF Gore had won in 2000 we would still have gone to Iraq. If Hillary was President during 9/11 we would be in Iraq. If Clinton was President we would be in Iraq.
Count 1: Clinton bombing them for eight years means nothing. I more respect for putting boots on the ground. Saddam could have avoided the whole mess if he opened up to inspectors. Now I know nothing has been found, BUT all of the inspectors have said Saddam was playing a cat and mouse game. May I ask, do we wait on Iran or do we use a preemptive attack?
Posted by think4yourself on Feb 1, 2006 at 1:03 AM Count 2: I see no problem with trying to take out the leader of a nation you are at war with. As for the official outbreak, I think that made it official. And besides are you saying only the working class soldiers and not the elite of a given nation should die?
I have seen no proof of intentionally targeting civilians and it is a disgrace you would even imply that our men and women would do it if Bush said, “Kill all the kids you can, especially in hospitals”. What you have here is the “insurgents”, whatever, hiding in these places.
If I were conducting a war I would use disproportionate force, ITS WAR!
I agree the DU is some bad stuff. We should lobby against its use.
In war you kill people and break things. I will leave the decision of what needs to be broken and killed to those with their boots on the ground.
Mosques saw Seizure of, destruction of willful damage done to them because that’s were they hide weapons.
How can you kill someone and not willfully cause great suffering or serious injury to body or health?
Again, it is the job of the commanders to use “whatever means” and I do not think the US indiscriminately bombed undefended towns, villages, dwellings, and buildings.
I think most of the looting was done by Iraqis, remember when other Iraqis wanted the US to shoot them?
Posted by think4yourself on Feb 1, 2006 at 1:03 AM Count 3: I guess the three votes of 2005 mean nothing to you. We invaded less than three years ago, and now they have a new government. I think that qualifies as self-determination, since they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Panties on the head of a prisoner is not torture, cutting off teachers, girls, reporters and teenagers who are there on their own to help heads is!
Your points are redundant. I think all this, unlawful attacks, including assassinations, summary executions, murders, disappearances, kidnappings and torture, including using deadly violence against peaceful protestors, was going on before we got to Baghdad.
What is the instance we used collective punishment?
Refer to previous comment on torture. As for the covert transfer of prisoners, there is no proof this was done to torture.
So now you want the US to completely occupy Iraq to make it safe. Make up your mind.
I do not buy the idea we have actively created conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded when the complete opposite is true in Afghanistan, ask the women and girls going to school now. I also believe it is the Muslim men that also cut the clitoris out of their women, not us.
Someone should be able to keep all of their profits no matter what.
Again I think you have covered the non existent extensive destruction of property not justified by military necessity. I defer to the men on the ground as to what is necessary.
And you are repeating yourself.
And Bush is the first President EVER to use propaganda.
Torture, Torture, Torture.
Do you know any soldiers? The ones I know do not at all feel this way.
As to the invasion and occupation, we had the right based on the document Iraq signed to end the first Gulf War, not to mention the many other UN resolutions. And yes I know Israel has violated UN resolutions, but that is separate from Iraq (in the sense of your argument).
That’s all I have to say about that.
Posted by think4yourself on Feb 1, 2006 at 1:04 AM My apologies for any insult inferred, but you really set yourself up with your “alienable” choice of colloquial expression. For that matter, I’m inclined to further insult you for your miserable choice of emigration from Seattle to Florida, that criminal utopia for these united states. That you might disagree with me merely indicates that you are one of the criminals in question, which I doubt, or that you’ve managed to isolate yourself from the predatory pool of victims upon which the criminals prey. Of course, Jeb Bush ranks among the best of them. Stealing minority votes is his specialty.
If your opinion of politicians is accurately portrayed, then you would be better advised to borrow a page from the Canadian manual of electoral intolerance and vote for the Democratic thieves. The Republican thieves are in the process of consolidating the theft for the indefinite future, with catastrophic concequences for all concerned, and might benefit from the anodyne experience of a summary exile to the wilderness of minority status.
Posted by Major Major on Feb 1, 2006 at 1:12 AM Luminous,
So you really think there is a case against Bush on Global Health, Global Warming and Katrina?
I find it funny that those on the left think Bush is an Idiot, but he is responsible for everything that is wrong today.
Posted by think4yourself on Feb 1, 2006 at 1:13 AM Major,
I am voting third party because we need change and the elites of both of these parties are one in the same!
Posted by think4yourself on Feb 1, 2006 at 1:15 AM In light of your subsequent remarks, I am regretfully compelled to retract my previous apology. You may have been born in Seattle, but you presently reside in some sado-masochistic fantasyland where the occupation of a defenseless, demoralized and all-but-destroyed people is somehow equated to a war with Germany and Japan. You should be ashamed of yourself, and the leaders to which you slavishly defer.
Posted by Major Major on Feb 1, 2006 at 1:28 AM It seems to me that just about every ITT discourse somehow or other always degenerates into a partisan blamefest of conservative vs. liberal.Don’t you people get it?
For the greatest majority of our elected representatives,money and self enrichment are their only cocern,(and of course re-election to further their self-enrichment)espousal of any political idealogy is calculated by whatever the polls say,bottom line.
There is no difference between a democrat or republican politician,they are all leeches of the lowest form,and they have sold their constituents down the river for the last 93 years(at least).History has shown that our so called"representatives"don’t care a rats ass about us,why should we care about them?
My parents were drugged by Ozzie and Harriett,my generation was drugged by drugs,and todays generation is drugged by Survivor and Lost.While we were all drugged,they took over the store.I just woke up a couple of years ago.I want our store back.How about you?
Posted by Dr.D on Feb 1, 2006 at 2:04 AM It is amusing that thinky is so enamored of his own opinion in place of the rule of law.
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 1, 2006 at 2:13 AM Yes, Dr. D. I want our store back. I’ve been awake for 35 years or so and watched it all going down. Been waiting for the pendulum to swing back. Soon now, I think, if we can just get our heads together. Perhaps our reps don’t care because we don’t, eh?
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 1, 2006 at 2:28 AM Luminous,35 years ago,I was most likely listening to Steppinwolf’s “Monster” in a hash induced haze,little did I know that John McKay would turn out to be a prophet.
Posted by Dr.D on Feb 1, 2006 at 2:49 AM Luminous,
My opinion matters not.
The rule of law is all that matters!
Posted by think4yourself on Feb 1, 2006 at 3:02 AM I was most likely listening to Steppinwolf’s “Monster” in a hash induced haze, little did I know that John McKay would turn out to be a prophet.
Me too, man. That was some great cover art, wasn’t it? I just thought he was telling like it is. Just as it is.
“America, where are you now.
Don’t you care about your sons and daughters?
Don’t you know, we need you now.
We can’t fight alone against the monster.”I just heard George use the word ‘compassion’. I could use a hit of hash, right now.
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 1, 2006 at 3:59 AM thinky,
You’re right to disagree is respected. You’re opinion of serious legal charges though, is trite, superfical and uninformed.
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 1, 2006 at 4:04 AM I,m not sure how I did it,but for some reason or other,I put the celtic “Mc"in front of Mr.Kay’s surname in my blurb last night.Being of celtic heritage myself,maybe I subconsciously claimed him as one of our own because I admire the man and agree with his ideals.
To the best of my knowledge and recollection,John Kay was born in Germany during WWII,and he and his family emigrated to the U.S in the early to mid 50’s.
I also mis-spelled “Steppenwolf”.
Posted by Dr.D on Feb 2, 2006 at 1:37 AM is an excellent resource. I looked all over for a concise list of administrative crimes. This is in my bookmarks now. Thank you.
Point of information Liberal—-the military is admitting to the use of White Phosphorous in Fallujah. For whatever that’s worth, Napalm was developed to be used as an incendiary anti-personnel weapon. It’s jellied gasoline that was designed to stick to human flesh (sick, isn’t it?). White Phosphorous is used for illumination. It kills people just the same, but the military can deny that it was intentionally used for that purpose.
Dr. D, I agree—-both parties stink. Though Bush is technically responsible for the executive end of this mess, I think it should be fairly obvious that he’s a Republican fundraiser, and is not formulating policy. My guess is that the people who groomed him for the post knew that he would be loved by half the population and hated by the rest—-in the beginning—- and if he’s unanimously hated by the end of his reign, then so what?! The corporate aristocracy has got just about everything they ever wanted, and it will take years to dig ourselves out of the avalanche of legalese that he and Congress both signed for. Bush will get most of the blame. I almost feel sorry for the bastard.
I also don’t understand why so many intelligent people are blaming the populace for the “re-election” when there is no good reason to believe that Bush was actually elected. I’ll look for that article in Harper’s.
You guys look great for your age! 35 years ago I was ten. I remember it. Remember more from 68 and 69, though—-those were tough years.
Haven’t had time to catch up on the Abramhoff scandals. So much scandal, so little time.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 2, 2006 at 9:08 AM the following excerpt is from Harper’s
<boxquote>The national turnout in 2004 was the highest since 1968, when another unpopular war had swept the ruling party from the White House. [1] Yet this ever-less-beloved president, this president who had united liberals and conservatives and nearly all the world against himself—this president somehow bested his opponent by 3,000,176 votes.How did he do it? To that most important question the commentariat, briskly prompted by Republicans, supplied an answer. Americans of faith—a silent majority heretofore unmoved by any other politician—had poured forth by the millions to vote “Yes!” for Jesus’ buddy in the White House. Bush’s 51 percent, according to this thesis, were roused primarily by “family values.” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called gay marriage “the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term.” The pundits eagerly pronounced their amens—“Moral values,” Tucker Carlson said on CNN, “drove President Bush and other Republican candidates to victory this week”—although it is not clear why. The primary evidence of our Great Awakening was a post-election poll by the Pew Research Center in which 27 percent of the respondents, when asked which issue “mattered most” to them in the election, selected something called “moral values.” This slight plurality of impulse becomes still less impressive when we note that, as the pollsters went to great pains to make clear, “the relative importance of moral values depends greatly on how the question is framed.” In fact, when voters were asked to “name in their own words the most important factor in their vote,” only 14 percent managed to come up with “moral values.” Strangely, this detail went little mentioned in the post-electoral commentary.</boxquote>
As this shows, Americans rallied and voted in numbers not seen since the election of 68 (four more years, four more years—-hah). The majority did not elect George W., but they are nevertheless getting kicked in the teeth for it. Calling people names and belittling their intelligence is a whole lot easier than facing a stolen election., but that is what got W. back in the White House.
After this, I’m going to surf for another article, and come back with a request. Then I’ll read up on the latest Abramoff.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 2, 2006 at 9:56 AM I guess that’s “BLOCKquote”.
The following posts are an article about rape and women in the U.S. military who are serving in Iraq. I’m asking people who are interested to read this, and then write their congresspeople and ask that this be addressed.
I wrote mine this morning and included a list of the top five portable toilets at about.com. A simple thing can save a lot of women a lot of grief, humiliation, and pain that some women have literally died to avoid.
Military Hides Cause of Women Soldiers’ Deaths
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Report Monday 30 January 2006In a startling revelation, the former commander of Abu Ghraib prison testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former senior US military commander in Iraq, gave orders to cover up the cause of death for some female American soldiers serving in Iraq.
Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women’s latrine after dark.
The latrine for female soldiers at Camp Victory wasn’t located near their barracks, so they had to go outside if they needed to use the bathroom. “There were no lights near any of their facilities, so women were doubly easy targets in the dark of the night,” Karpinski told retired US Army Col. David Hackworth in a September 2004 interview. It was there that male soldiers assaulted and raped women soldiers. So the women took matters into their own hands. They didn’t drink in the late afternoon so they wouldn’t have to urinate at night. They didn’t get raped. But some died of dehydration in the desert heat, Karpinski said.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 2, 2006 at 10:12 AM Karpinski testified that a surgeon for the coalition’s joint task force said in a briefing that “women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep.”
“And rather than make everybody aware of that - because that’s shocking, and as a leader if that’s not shocking to you then you’re not much of a leader - what they told the surgeon to do is don’t brief those details anymore. And don’t say specifically that they’re women. You can provide that in a written report but don’t brief it in the open anymore.”
For example, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, Sanchez’s top deputy in Iraq, saw “dehydration” listed as the cause of death on the death certificate of a female master sergeant in September 2003. Under orders from Sanchez, he directed that the cause of death no longer be listed, Karpinski stated. The official explanation for this was to protect the women’s privacy rights.
Sanchez’s attitude was: “The women asked to be here, so now let them take what comes with the territory,” Karpinski quoted him as saying. Karpinski told me that Sanchez, who was her boss, was very sensitive to the political ramifications of everything he did. She thinks it likely that when the information about the cause of these women’s deaths was passed to the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld ordered that the details not be released. “That’s how Rumsfeld works,” she said.
“It was out of control,” Karpinski told a group of students at Thomas Jefferson School of Law last October. There was an 800 number women could use to report sexual assaults. But no one had a phone, she added. And no one answered that number, which was based in the United States. Any woman who successfully connected to it would get a recording. Even after more than 83 incidents were reported during a six-month period in Iraq and Kuwait, the 24-hour rape hot line was still answered by a machine that told callers to leave a message.
“There were countless such situations all over the theater of operations - Iraq and Kuwait - because female soldiers didn’t have a voice, individually or collectively,” Karpinski told Hackworth. “Even as a general I didn’t have a voice with Sanchez, so I know what the soldiers were facing. Sanchez did not want to hear about female soldier requirements and/or issues.”
Karpinski was the highest officer reprimanded for the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, although the details of interrogations were carefully hidden from her. Demoted from Brigadier General to Colonel, Karpinski feels she was chosen as a scapegoat because she was a female.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 2, 2006 at 10:14 AM You can find the rest of the article
Military Hides Cause of Women Soldiers’ Deaths
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Report Monday 30 January 2006It’s not doing battle with e-ville but providing these women with privacy and safety is a simple, low-budget task. Who knows, maybe some senators might even be happy to get something done for a change. At least one of them ought to be able to write a memo to make it happen. I can’t see Rumsfeld arguing with this.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 2, 2006 at 10:24 AM Too bad the rabbit missed out on a Thinky wacking.
A fairly rare dittohead around these parts our ol Thinkmaster it is good to see him back in business spreading his good natured moronity around.
Don’t compare him with Tiny Shrew, for he is actually more of a thinker.
What he mostly means is Think for YOURself. He is giving you an example of thoughtlessness, the rest is up to you brother. Think for yourself, or see where you’ll end up.
Rabbit pictures Thinky as wearing one of those Clapboard sign arrangements which people wear to advertise Pizza’s or the End of the World.
He is actually the soul brother of Jay DeCline.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 6, 2006 at 9:20 AM By the way Wiley. Thinky is one of the breeding pair of Dittoheads of which you have heard some mention.
From his relative sweetness it seems likely he would be the Yin half of that Union, Rabbit cannot for the life of him recall the mate.
The rabbit is idly wacking his Thinkfulness, but he is not unmindful of the threads subject, and shall say something stunningly radiant, at least about it soon.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 6, 2006 at 11:24 AM Calling Rabbit! Thinky? I had completely forgotten about Thinky, had to scroll back up to take a look. Still nothing stuck, but I’m a little sleep deprived right now. Stuff doesn’t stick to my brain when I don’t get my full ration of sacred sleep.
Rabbit, are you a sweeTroll? I am pondering this and my own inclination to be more level than most protestants can bear.
Too bad you and MM don’t get along so well. Or maybe that’s wonderful. I feel like I can be placed on the middle of a spectrum that has you on one end and MM on the other. It’s nearly psychedelic.
Wrote my congressman again because I have not received a reply. I may escalate and pay to have the message hand delivered, even though that chaps my ass. It’s the principle—-I want a response and I’m willing to pay $4.95 cents to get confirmation, and another $4.95 to get an answer. Claws engaged—-sharp, rat like claws and teeth of the witch babushka.
Is that sort of thing in in Oz—-can you pay to get a message to a statesperson? Or would you just as soon beat them up? You have a parliament? I know diddly doop about Oz, but I definitely associate Howard with the Coalition of the Willing. Is that stupid or what? It sounds like a bunch of randy high school girls.
I’m yacking my brains out, Rabbit, because I’m so nervous—-it’s a way to distract myself from horrible thoughts.
See ya.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 7, 2006 at 9:05 AM Little Johnny Howhard is a Bush lover. He is a Neo-crazy so is the Danish Prime Minister, Rassmussen.
Trying to get a message to any of our representatives is easy enough. Getting a standard reply is a piece of cake.
Any more than that then don’t waste your time.
Self serving Party Lin e two faced bastards and bitches all of them.
They should all be raped with Pineapples, rough end first.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 7, 2006 at 1:21 PM wiley,
I’ve found the best way for ordinary citizens to get the attention of a congressperson is to visit their home office. Cultivate a friendly, open relationship with his/her staff. It helps to represent some civic group. If you don’t have money or status, it’s votes and organizing skills that ring their bells. Don’t expect any real commitments. Expect to be co-opted. Keep your eye on the prize. Good luck!
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 7, 2006 at 3:11 PM Oh, I’m not going on a campaign, Lumens. I want to see this one issue addressed. The democratic senator in my state (who had better be in Washington right now) just put up a web site. I actually like the way he votes on most things.
I think they are starting to catch on. The web is still promising for democracy. People just expected it to happen too fast. Technologically based change always takes a while to catch on.
I’m questing for some mentors to help me inform myself more and get organized to write substantially and post around on nuclear issues. That’s my rabid pet albatross.
Rabbit—-raped with pineapples? How awful! You could give a crash course in netisadism, you know. I will, involuntarily, most likely, try to think of things worse than pineapples in this context for the remainder of the day. It’s a challenge, by George!
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 7, 2006 at 8:07 PM ooo! ooo! I got one.
How about ‘Raped sideways with a rusty railroad spike’?
It’s got a lot of alliteration going for it. It’s how I feel after listening to AG Gonzo defending illegal wire-tapping.
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 7, 2006 at 8:31 PM The image just falls down at the actual enactment. The pineapple reigns supreme. It is at least possible whilst being the epitomy of uncomfortable.
Rabbit heard a guy say it once (whilst in jail), when the guy returned from his appearance in court for sentencing. When asked how he’d gone he replied that he’d been raped with a pineapple, pointy end first.
Since in his case it referred to fourteen years in prison, I figured it was fitting.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 8, 2006 at 5:16 AM EWWWW, Lumens!
You guys are sinister!
I thought cactus. Nah. No plant could compare to the pineapple. Artichoke just came to mind. Nah. I was thinking about the four syllable beat of a pineapple. A Moray Eel, and something else came to mind——oh year—-a set of blinds...
you guys are too good. I thought I might need a little game to keep my mind occupied while I did housework, today. But, I actually had fun cleaning. Sometimes it just goes that way. Washed walls, and mirrored doors. It was a sunny day—-it felt like spring cleaning after three years of rain.
You are made of some tough stuff listening to that evil lawyer’s evil testimony. I’d rather have sex with a smelly dwarf.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 8, 2006 at 8:14 AM Dwarfs smell worst after sex I’m told.
.........................................eeeew!
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 9, 2006 at 2:06 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Richard L. Fricker
- Witness for the Prosecution
Abramoff's plea agreement could land him in the middle of a murder trial
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
