Randy "Duke" Cunningham

Call me naive, but it looked to me like Duke was really sorry. It looked like he admitted to everything he was guilty of. How refreshing! How many others are out there who will continue to lie and lie until the truth is shoved in their faces, and probably even then. Anyway, I for one appreciate it greatly when someone comes forth and admits guilt. It makes them such a bigger person than all those who don't. To do wrong and admit it and apologize to the public is, in today's corrupt political environment, almost an act of heroism.
(Update: OK, I was wrong. He was crying because he got caught and I saw him lying about it when interviewed in July 2005. Which only goes to show that even I can be wrong :)

Happy Birthday Scorpiano!

Yes, I am wishing myself a happy birthday. It's a tough job but someone's got to do it. On my birthday, I try to sit back and review the year, the ups/downs, the accomplishments, the challenges, etc. The things I've done good this year....my successes.... well, I've generously helped those less fortunate, I've learned a lot, I've tried to help all of us by being very politically vocal, I've grown spiritually, blah, blah, blah. My failures...yes, I have them.... I have lost family members to drugs, anger, and the lure of $$$$$. But, all in all it's been a great year. I've made a lot of GREAT friends, and had many wonderful opportunities, and in spite of a serious heart disease, I'm still kickin'. So, Happy Birthday to me! I must say that finding out that Robert C. Byrd was a Scorpio, too, really made my day! He's just one of my heroes.

So, if you're reading this, celebrate with me and be grateful for the wonderful things you have in your life... oh, and the wonderful people!

PEACE!

A Picture REALLY IS Worth a Thousand Words!

Thank You, Hugo Chavez!

Thank you for helping heat the homes of poor Americans this winter. Regardless of your motives (which I do not question) you gesture will save lives. It is my hope that one day we in American will have a leader that cares about the common people and not just doing everything in his power to make the rich (like himself) RICHER!! Woe unto us as a nation. We are totally adrift with a money-grubbing war-monger for a "leader!" People who are not concerned and who refuse to act to help those less fortunate are the real losers in life. They walk around on this earth with sleeping souls and that is how they live out there days. How sad.

NO WAY! I AM SHOCKED! (tee hee)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former top State Department official said Sunday that Vice President Dick Cheney provided the "philosophical guidance" and "flexibility" that led to the torture of detainees in U.S. facilities.

Scorpiano Jr. - Happy Graduation! Love, Mom

WHAT ELSE INDEED??!!

'Cheney is vice president for torture'
9.02AM, Fri Nov 18 2005
A former CIA director has claimed that torture is condoned and even approved by the Bush government.
The devastating accusations have been made by Admiral Stansfield Turner who labelled Dick Cheney "a vice president for torture".
He said: "We have crossed the line into dangerous territory".
The American Senate says torture should be banned - whatever the justification. But President Bush has threatened to veto their ruling.
The former spymaster claims President Bush is not telling the truth when he says that torture is not a method used by the US.
Speaking of Bush's claims that the US does not use torture, Admiral Turner, who ran the CIA from 1977 to 1981, said: "I do not believe him".
On Dick Cheney he said "I'm embarrassed the United States has a vice president for torture.
"He condones torture, what else is he?".

My Christmas Wish List!

Definition of a TRUE Hero:

First woman GI says "No"
Posted by Rachel Neumann on November 17, 2005 at 10:04 AM.

This morning in Fort Benning, Georgia, surrounded by members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Army National Guard Specialist Katherine Jashinski publicly announced her refusal to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Jashinski, who has been in the National Guard since April 2002, has said she'd rather go to prison than to go to war . She'd asked a San Antonio judge to allow her to stay in San Antonio, where she is currently stationed.
An Army Judge Advocate General had argued that a ruling in Jashinski's favor could 'open the floodgates' to other reservists and active duty soldiers trying to use conscientious objector status to avoid duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently, the judge agreed, ruling that Jashinski CO status.
Will her refusal to go, despite the judge's ruling, "open the flood gates"? One can only hope.

Thought for Today

Courtesy of Seal

"In a world full of people only some want to fly, isn't that crazy?"

Shock and Awe!

Mine! Last night I was shopping at the local drugstore for a thank-you card for a friend. When out of the corner of my eye I saw GWB's face on a card. So, I picked up the card and read (and bought) it. On the front it shows a picture of GWB at a podium and it reads, "Another year older, Girl? Try lying about your age." When you open it up, it says, "Hey, it worked for weapons of mass destruction. Happy Birthday." Whoa..... now wait just a minute, let me catch my breath. On the back there is a smaller picture of Bush, and it says, "I cannot tell a lie." So you tell me. Just how angry are the folks at American Greetings? Isn't American Greetings second only to Hallmark in the US? Since when has the truth been assimilated into our popular culture?! You could have knocked me over with a feather. Tonight I'm going back and buying every one they have. Vindication is better than chocolate!
PS: BIG KUDOS to American Greetings! Just for that I'll never buy Hallmark again!

I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!

US: Incendiary weapon used in Iraq
Wednesday 16 November 2005, 12:22 Makka Time, 9:22 GMT

Pentagon officials have acknowledged that US troops used white phosphorous as a weapon during the battle of Falluja last November.

Source: Aljazeera.net

Scorpiano Visits the Birthplace of Bill Clinton!

Scorpiano has a new pet. Meet Katie!

There is a GOD/GODDESS!!!!!!

Bush approval mark at all-time low
(CNN) -- Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his presidency, according to a national poll released Monday.
Bush also received his all-time worst marks in three other categories in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The categories were terrorism, Bush's trustworthiness and whether the Iraq war was worthwhile.
Bush's 37 percent overall approval rating was two percentage points below his ranking in an October survey. Both polls had a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Sixty percent of the 1,006 adult Americans interviewed by telephone Friday through Sunday said they disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.
The White House has said it doesn't pay attention to poll numbers and the figures do not affect policy.
"We have a proud record of accomplishment and a positive agenda for the future," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Wednesday.
"We look forward to continuing to talk about it. I mean, you can get caught up in polls; we don't. Polls are snapshots in time."
Bush, who received high marks after the terrorist attacks of 2001, also rated poorly in the new poll for his policy on terrorism. For the first time, less than half -- 48 percent -- of those surveyed said they approved of how the president was handling the war on terror. Forty-nine percent said they disapprove.
In November 2001, Bush had an 87 percent overall approval mark and an 86 percent rating on terrorism.
Bush has been under fire from Democratic lawmakers for the way his administration made the case to invade Iraq in 2003 and how it has handled the conflict since then.
The president fired back in a speech Monday, accusing Democrats of "playing politics." In the new poll, 60 percent said it was not worth going to war in Iraq, while 38 percent said it was worthwhile. The question was asked of about half of those surveyed and had a margin of error of five percentage points. The results marked a decline in support of seven percentage points from two months earlier.
Bush's lowest approval ratings came on two issues that divide his own Republican Party.
On federal spending, 71 percent disapproved of his performance and 26 percent approved. The approval rating was the same on immigration issues, and the disapproval mark was 65 percent.
Sixty-one percent of respondents disapproved of Bush's handling of the economy, and 37 percent approved.
The country appears to be split on whether Bush is a strong president and whether or not Americans personally like him.
When asked about his abilities, 49 percent of those surveyed said he was a strong president and 49 percent said he was a weak leader.
About 50 percent of people polled said they disliked Bush, with 6 percent claiming to hate the president.
Bush's overall approval mark matched the 37 percent rating of newly elected President Clinton in June 1993. When asked if they trust Bush more than they had Clinton, 48 percent of respondents said they trusted Bush less, while 36 percent said they trusted him more and 15 percent said they trusted Bush the same as Clinton.
For the first time, more than half of the public thinks Bush is not honest and trustworthy -- 52 percent to 46 percent.
A week ago, President Bush campaigned for Virginia gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore, who lost the election a day later to Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine.
In the poll, 56 percent of registered voters said they would be likely to vote against a local candidate supported by Bush, while 34 percent said the opposite.
Only 9 percent said their first choice in next year's elections would be a Republican who supports Bush on almost every major issue.
Forty-six percent said the country would be better off if Congress were controlled by Democrats, while 34 percent backed a GOP majority.
A large majority of Republicans -- 80 percent -- approve of Bush's performance, compared with 28 percent of independents and 7 percent of Democrats. Those results had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Vice President Dick Cheney's approval rating has dropped 14 points since the start of the year, down from 54 percent in January to 40 percent.
His chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, resigned last month after he was indicted on charges including obstruction of justice and perjury. Libby is accused of lying to investigators and a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a CIA officer whose husband criticized the White House case for war.

GET READY FOLKS!

GWB's ratings have hit an alltime low. Apparently his closest advisors think that another 9/11-esque event would bring his numbers back up. So, DUCK!!! But first, read this and do some research on your own (for once!).

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor. In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones. In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.

Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says. Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations. "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes. As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation." Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says. Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "

document.writeln(AAMB6);
var bnum=new Number(Math.floor(99999999 * Math.random())+1); document.write('');
In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:
• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.
• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.
Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding." Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September. Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.

Suicide Bombers

Since this topic has been in the news recently, I'd like to share my thoughts on this topic with you. First, I would like to think that I could never be a suicide bomber. For two reasons. One, I think that suicide is wrong and second, I think murder is wrong. That being said, I DO understand the mindset of the suicide bombers. I can understand that they believe they are out of options and want their lives to count for something, even if that something is only to briefly call attention to a cause they believe is worth giving up their lives for. All I can really say is that I understand and I don't judge. It's not a fit for me, but it obviously is for others. More on this later after I've had more time to research the nuances of this topic.

The Truth About Pre-War Intelligence

Every single time a repugnican is questioned about the war, the first thing out of their mouths is that many democrats, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as the republicans and the whitehouse, voted to go to war with Iraq. Pay attention here......THIS IS A LIE.
For starters, neither republican nor democrats had access to the SAME pre-war intelligence that GWB and Dick had. It was the cooked-by-the-whitehouse versions that were shared with republicans and democrats. But, even more importantly to me, is that many of the democrats, including those on the Intelligence Committee, DID NOT receive even the cooked versions of pre-war intelligence documents. In addition, they were literally locked out of meetings held by the republican members of the Intelligence Committee. Now, if the democratic members of the Intelligence Committee did not receive these reports or attend the pre-war Committee meetings, do you really believe that the other democratic congress people and senators ever saw a genuine pre-war intelligence report before it had been edited by the whitehouse? If you believe that you deserve the life you will soon be living. The life that GWB is bringing us to. Isn't it enough for you that the man is a straight-up LIAR?????? Ease up on the Kool-Aid.
To sum up, any democrat that voted for war with Iraq was a democrat that made only ONE mistake..... that mistake was giving a lying, war-monger the benefit of the doubt just because he happens to be president. Believe that.

Gee, I thought I was just joking....

In 2000 I said that if a toaster ran against Bush I'd vote for the toaster. It was meant to be sort of funny. But as it turns out, the toaster really would have made a better president!!!

Bush’s approval ratings will not recover

I’ve already seen the so-called "narrative of comeback" being bandied about in the mainstream media. They tell us that the story line is supposed to go: 1. Rise 2. Fall 3. Comeback. Now that George Bush has suffered the fall, the media now gets busy writing the comeback. There are two problems with this.
First, this isn’t a movie. The media is supposed to report what happens, not write a pre-ordained script. We’re in serious times; we need our reporters to be serious people. Not a bunch of second-rate wannabe script writers. The country isn’t your amusement park. Do your job – report the facts!
Second, Bush isn’t going to make a comeback. He’s fallen and he can’t get up.
A comeback presupposes substance and ability. A worthy character who has suffered some setbacks, bad luck or simple human mistakes can make a comeback because he has it in him. Tom Brady of the New England Patriots, Michael Jordan, the Boston Red Sox can mount comebacks. The Arizona Cardinals are not making a comeback this season. They don’t have the team and the ability to straighten out what has gone wrong. They will continue to lose until the end of the season.
George Bush is the Arizona Cardinals. His team is terrible and he refuses to change any of his players. He doesn’t have the personality suited for making necessary changes. Quickly adjusting to changing circumstances is not his forte, stubbornness is. Even if he had the inclination to make a change, he doesn’t have the ability. He simply doesn’t know what the hell he is doing.
We’ve been playing most of his speeches and press conferences on our radio show for the last three years. After having listened to him talk about the issues for all that time, there is no polite way to put this – the man is an imbecile.
He is a simpleton who does not grasp complicated circumstances. As sectarian strife between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is ripping Iraq apart, he has never once mentioned the competing claims of those groups and explained how they affect our mission in Iraq. There is a good reason for that – he can’t.
I’m confident that if a reporter surprised him tomorrow and asked him what the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite is, he would have no idea.
Even if you’re a conservative or a Republican, do you really believe that the President has any idea what the difference between those warring factions are? That he might be able to tell you a little bit about their history and why they’re fighting and what may be able to bring them together? That the President can muster up a cogent, intelligent response? I don’t think you even believe that.
Look, this emperor hasn’t had any clothes on for a long time. Only our collective brainwashing and purposeful avoidance of the obvious has shielded us from reality. He keeps talking about evildoers and people who hate us for our freedom. He has the mental capacity of a third grader. And no matter how much of an apologist you are for this administration or how much you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, you know it in your heart. It’s crystal clear when you listen to him. The President is a dunce.
He makes Dan Quayle look like a Rhodes Scholar. At least Quayle could put together a sentence every once in awhile and didn’t make comical references to "the evil ones."
Did anyone watch that Bush teleconference with the troops a couple of weeks ago? I don’t think Dan Quayle was ever that bad on his worst day. Is anyone paying attention? This guy can’t even put together a sentence in a scripted appearance in front of a friendly crowd. He was absolutely pathetic in the debates against Kerry. And did anyone hear him answer the sovereignty question? If not, please listen here.
For the love of God, call a spade a spade. How much cognitive dissonance does it take for the press to carry on this charade? The man isn’t bright, and you’re not doing yourself any favors by ignoring the obvious.
No matter. The damage is done. The Iraq War is irreparably off course. Eventually, the average American citizen will finally realize we have tortured in the name of America. The CIA leak case will only grow messier. The deficit will only grow larger. The fixing of intelligence in a desperate attempt to drive the country to war will only become clearer from here on out.
There is no good news around the corner. Around the corner is a date the American people have with the truth. And it is a date that will not go well for this administration.
One of the principal ways the Bush administration has been able to keep their approval ratings up is by carrying out a concerted campaign of misinformation, often unwittingly aided by the mainstream media and completely organized by the right wing media. There have been no challenges to this order up to now. But finally, the mainstream press is beginning to turn. The print media is back to doing a solid to excellent job.
Television is the last stand of the conservative media machine. They held down the fort with a countless number of conservative talk shows and conservative hosts. They have shouted down and belittled the opposition. They have intimidated the rest of the press into thinking their view is the only mainstream view.
This is a house of cards. If just one good anti-administration show goes up on cable news, this house will come crumbling down. If one liberal/progressive/moderate/ reasonable show gets good ratings, then ten more will follow. And when television is balanced, the American people will finally see what this administration has worked so hard and long to hide from them. It will not be pretty.
The advantage of this prediction for my opponents is that it is in the public forum. So, if the Bush administration proves me wrong, you can come back and rub it in my face. If Bush leaves office with approval ratings above 50 percent, then I will have been clearly proven wrong. You can disregard my predictions and my analysis from there on out.
How much clearer do I have to be? Why am I going this far out on the limb? Because I know I’m right. There can be temporary blips that improve the President’s poll numbers for awhile, there can be some fleeting good news and some fake milestones accomplished. But none of that will change the fact that this man is not up to the job.
He is lazy, uninterested and incompetent. He views the presidency as homework. He seems to enjoy politics (at least while he’s up), but he doesn’t enjoy policy. He is detached from decision making and his decision makers have led him dangerously astray. Finally and most importantly, he doesn’t care to get it right.
George W. Bush will never put in the long hours to make sure we have the right policy in Iraq, in the war on terror, in the budget or anything else that concerns actual governing. He finds these things to be tedious. In reality, they are essential to the job of being President. He is overmatched.
And when you’re overmatched, you don’t put together second half comebacks. You get crushed.

Evan Derkacz (the author of this article) is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.

Let's Get Personal.........

Oh, how I hate revealing personal information for all to see, but the time has come to share. My sharing is relative to my previous posts regarding militant fundamentalist Christians of today. By the way, I strongly recommend Jimmy Carter's new book, Our Endangered Values : America's Moral Crisis. But, seriously, I have an ex-husband who claims to be a Christian. However, he supports every action taken by George Bush. He believes the bible supports the concept of war and that in times of war we can use whatever means are necessary to prevail. Afterall, we are prevailing for a Christian nation, therefore, we are prevailing for Jesus. As time goes by and the US becomes more and more hated by people of all faiths around the world this good, God-fearing Christian, stands NOT with God, NOT with Jesus, but with George Bush. I have a news flash for all of you who think like him.... you are NOT Christians. You are fundamentalist nationalists. Period. God/Jesus would have no part in what you are doing to your brothers and sisters. Though it's convenient to forget such outdated ways of thinking, let's try for a moment to remember: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You, Thou Shalt Not Kill, Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself, What Ye Do Unto These the Least of my Brethern ... Ye Do Also Unto Me (Jesus), and last, but not least, since it is the guiding principle of the Bush Administration, Thou Shalt Not Covet (as in OIL). Am I getting through here or is the ole' tummy still full of your last cup of communion Kool-Aid?!
And I have still more bad news for folks like the old ex. While God is forgiving, of course, I don't think he had in mind giving you carte blanche to do whatever "sins" you wanted, knowing that the next day you could ask forgiveness and all would be just fine. You'd still be getting that invitation to Heaven! I don't think God had in mind pre-planning your sins because you know you are saved. I think that little tidbit was added by the early Catholic Church in order to hold onto parishioners. You see, INTENTIONS do matter do God. I know that's a hard pill to swallow, but it's true. But you don't have to take my word for it. One day you will find out for yourself. Good Luck!!

Do You Give Christians a Bad Name???!!!!

Who would Jesus torture?
by David Batstone
Christians of strong religious faith and sound moral conscience often end up in disagreement. Human affairs are a messy business, unfortunately, and even at the best of times we only see through a glass, darkly.
It is hard for that reason to call Christians to a universal standard of behavior. At this moment, however, we cannot afford to dilute the message of Jesus into meaningless ambiguity. There are certain acts that a follower of Jesus simply cannot accept. Here is one: A Christian cannot justify the torture of a human being.
The practice of torture by American soldiers is a hot topic at the Pentagon, in the Congress, and in the White House at the moment. The U.S. Senate already has passed 90-9 a bill that prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. The lead advocate of the bill, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was tortured by his captors during the Vietnam War. According to The New York Times, the Pentagon adopted a policy last Thursday to rein in interrogation techniques. The new policy uses much of the same language as the McCain amendment - drawn in large part from the Geneva Convention - to adopt standards for handling terror suspects.
Remarkably, the White House opposes the Pentagon initiative, and threatens to veto any legislation to which the McCain bill gets attached. Vice President Dick Cheney has urged Republican senators to allow CIA counterterrorism operations internationally to be exempt from the ban on mistreatment of prisoners, major newspapers reported.
On Nov. 3, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, said during an interview on NPR's "Morning Edition" that memos from Cheney's office practically encouraged abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Though in "carefully couched terms" that would allow for deniability, the message from Cheney's office conveyed the sentiment that interrogations of Iraqi prisoners were not providing the needed intelligence. Wilkerson said soldiers in the field would have concluded that to garner better intelligence they could resort to interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war."
Republican senators are among the strongest voices in the growing chorus of criticism. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said, "I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture." And Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and co-sponsor of McCain's measure, agreed: "I firmly believe that it's in the best interest of the Department of Defense, the men and women of the United States military that this manual be their guide."
When the existence of secret CIA detention centers became public this week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called for investigations - not about whether they violate laws governing human rights - but about how the information was leaked. But members of their own party are keeping the focus where it belongs. The Washington Post quoted Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) as saying, "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails."
Admittedly, Christians of good faith part paths when political conflict leads us to consider what constitutes a just and righteous war - or if any war can be just. Though we may not consent on the means, we do consent on the need to confront the spread of evil in the world. Yet we can all affirm scripture when it says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17, 21). When we confront evil with its own means, those means mark our own character.
In that regard, the practice of torture so fully embraces evil it dehumanizes both the torturer and its victim. No just cause can be won if it relies on torture to succeed. Democracy and freedom cannot result from a war fueled by torture, which is why so many Americans were shocked and angered by the disturbing incidents that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
All the more so, Christians must oppose torture under any circumstances. Consider this: Who would Jesus torture? I cannot imagine Jesus finding a single "exemption" that would justify such an abuse of any individual made in God's image.
Though I bristle whenever I hear someone refer to the United States as a Christian nation - it is such a loaded phrase - many in the Muslim world see us as such. How tragic it would be for Muslims to identify the message and mission of Jesus with torture and terror. We must not allow that to happen.

ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERICAN? YOU BET I AM!

Failing Upward, Bush Style
By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.comPosted on November 10, 2005

The motto of this administration might easily be: "failing upward." Of course, that's not hard when those leading the country into catastrophe are also making the appointments and bestowing the honors. Somewhere in this world of ours there should be at least one Wall of Shame (and perhaps an adjoining Wall of Cronyism) for an administration which has heaped favor, position, and honors on those who have blundered, lied, manipulated, and broken the law (not to say, cracked open the Constitution and the republic).
Here is just a sampling of the band of culprits who might appear on such a wall and but a few of the things for which they might be held accountable.
Honored for Catastrophe
Former CIA Director George ("slam dunk") Tenet, who oversaw an "intelligence" program of lies, misinformation, abductions, torture, the disappearing of prisoners, and the setting up of a mini-gulag of private prisons from Thailand to Eastern Europe, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom as his tenure at the Agency ended.
Former Coalition Provisional Authority head L. Paul (I never saw an army I didn't want to disband) Bremer III, under whose leadership in Baghdad the American occupation mis- and displaced more money than is humanly imaginable, and under whose leadership Iraq descended into chaos, awarded the Medal of Freedom.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard ("Guantanamo is a model facility") Myers, who oversaw the Iraq War and whose claim to fame may have been that he called Dan Rather of CBS to try to suppress the first "60 Minutes II" report on Abu Ghraib, awarded the Medal of Freedom.
Former Centcom Commander Tommy ("we don't do body counts" ) Franks, who oversaw "victories" in Afghanistan and Iraq in wars that have never ended, retired to great administration praise and became a "paid patriot," awarded the Medal of Freedom
Promoted (or Retained) for Disaster
Defense Secretary Donald ("stuff happens") Rumsfeld, who planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq so brilliantly and bragged that he could stand up longer than any Guantánamo detainee, kept on as Secretary of Defense in George Bush's second term.
Former Undersecretary of Defense Paul ("There is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq") Wolfowitz, who spearheaded the administration's blind cakewalk into Iraq and declared himself "reasonably certain" that the Iraqi people "will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down," was made World Bank president and now prefers not to be "distracted" with ancient "history."
Former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John ("I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the vote" and "there is no such thing as the United Nations") Bolton, who never saw a country he couldn't include in the Axis of Evil, a treaty he wasn't ready to shred, or negotiations he wasn't prepared to sabotage, was given a presidential recess appointment as UN Ambassador after his nomination was deep-sixed by Senate Democrats.
The Torture Brigade
Former White House Counsel Alberto (no rules apply) Gonzales, who helped marshal the administration's case for "relaxing" interrogation rules on prisoners, and the man to whom so many of those torture memos were sent, was made Attorney General.
Former General Counsel for the Pentagon William J. Haynes II, who appointed a working group to circumvent laws and treaties restricting the administration's urge to torture, developed administration policies to deny detainees at Guantánamo prisoner of war status; developed the Pentagon's military tribunal policy to try them; promoted the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the President without legal counsel or judicial review, and recommended (over the protests of military lawyers) many of the most abusive tactics used at Guantánamo, was nominated to a judgeship in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by George W. Bush on September 29, 2003. Only a Democratic filibuster in the Senate derailed the appointment.
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice John ("must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death") Yoo, infamous for drafting the August 2002 "torture memo" to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and a supporter of unfettered presidential rule in matters of foreign policy, returned to his position as professor of law at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and wrote a book.
Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay ("certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within [a legal] proscription against torture") Bybee, who was the official author of the August 2002 torture memo , is now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Former Legal Counsel to the Vice President David Addington, "a staunch advocate of allowing the president in his capacity as commander in chief to deviate from the Geneva Conventions," "a principal author of the White House memo justifying torture of terrorism suspects and… a prime advocate of arguments supporting the holding of terrorism suspects without access to courts," known for his "devotion to secrecy" and to an extreme version of unfettered presidential power (as well as a backer of the stalled Haynes judgeship), was promoted to Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff after I. Lewis Libby's resignation.
Former head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division Michael Chertoff, who advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002-03 on how far CIA interrogators could go in coercive interrogation methods on terror suspects under the federal anti-torture statute, was appointed head of the Homeland Security Department where he oversaw FEMA's disastrous responses to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, and where he remains today.
Former principal deputy assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs John Hannah, a conduit for Iraqi exile prewar mis- or disinformation on Saddam's WMD arsenal, involved in producing prewar administration claims linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks and in the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson smear campaign, promoted to National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.
"Demoted"
Former FEMA Director Michael ("I am a fashion god") Brown, who so spectacularly botched the agency's response to hurricane Katrina, is now on the federal payroll as a $148,000-a-year consultant to FEMA.
Former U.S. Military Commander in Iraq Lt. General Ricardo ("Arab fear of dogs") Sanchez, who personally signed off on the use of coercive interrogation techniques outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, including the use of "working dogs," was to be made head of the U.S. Southern Command and nominated for his fourth star until Pentagon officials came to fear that his role overseeing the Abu Ghraib scandal would create opposition in the Senate and so he was given a major command in Europe.
Former Commander of Joint Task Force Guantánamo Maj. Gen. Geoffrey ("Gitmo-ize the confinement operation") Miller, who brought Guantánamo interrogation methods, including the use of dogs, to Iraq before the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal (reportedly claiming that Arab prisoners "are like dogs, and if you allow them to believe they're more than a dog, then you've lost control of them"), and for his efforts was then made senior commander in charge of detention operations in Iraq, instead of being cashiered in shame, is now assigned to an Army management position in the Washington, D.C area.
Sadly, while this gallery of rogues was being honored and/or promoted and/or protected, those who really should have received honors and medals were, by and large, overlooked or forgotten -- not just figures like ex-Marine and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who insisted before the war (to the sneers of American reporters) that Iraq was unlikely to possess even the shreds of its former WMD program, but all those millions who massed in the streets and insisted that an invasion of Iraq would be a path, paved by lies, that would lead only to madness. No "medals of freedom" for the likes of them.
Tom Engelhardt, editor of Tomdispatch.com, is co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of "The End of Victory Culture."

It's a sad day for Tony Blair....

He can only torture detainees for two weeks instead of the requested three months. He must be despondent! At least he's got GWB to go to for sympathy. Hey, maybe they could work out a deal where detainees in the UK sort of disappear, while Bush and Cheney have them wisked off, out of the UK, for some good ole' US brand of torture. You know... covert, illegal, sadistic...all the things the US does so much better than the UK.

He's Baaaaaack!!!!

Annan, US envoy disagree over Syria

US Ambassador John Bolton said Syria's perfomance was lacking
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and US Ambassador John Bolton disagree over whether Syria is cooperating with the UN Security Council in implementing recent resolutions.
The question is key, because the council a little more than a week ago unanimously approved a new resolution ordering Syria to cooperate fully with a UN investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri or face possible unspecified "further action".
After that 31 October vote, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the measure "made it clear that failure to comply with these demands will lead to serious consequences from the international community".
Tuesday's verbal clash began when Annan, in Cairo for a meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, told reporters Damascus "has had a good record" in implementing Security Council resolutions. Bolton, asked in New York about Annan's statement, said Syria's performance in carrying out council resolutions had ranged from "very lacking" to "substantially lacking".
Asked whether Annan's words were helpful to the council, Bolton responded: "I think I will not comment on his comment."
Resolutions
Annan: Syria had a good record in implementing resolutions The 15-nation council has passed a number of resolutions in the past 14 months dealing with Syria's domination of neighbouring Lebanon and with al-Hariri's 14 February assassination.
A resolution adopted on 2 September 2004, demanded the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon, a disbanding of militias in Lebanon and an end to Syrian meddling in Lebanon.
A second, approved on 7 April 2005, authorised an international investigation into al-Hariri's murder.
Syria to investigateAfter the September 2004 resolution, Syria withdrew its forces from Lebanon and Lebanon held parliamentary elections free of Syrian interference.
Acting on the April 2005 text, Detlev Mehlis, who leads the UN inquiry into al-Hariri's death, accused the Syrian authorities last month of obstructing his work and said the killing could not have been plotted without the knowledge of Syrian security officials and their Lebanese allies.
Annan, in Cairo, said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had assured him of Syria's intention to cooperate with Mehlis and praised Syrian implementation of the September 2004 measure.
Reuters
Okay. Are you surprised that Bolton has reared his ugly head again. Didn't we all predict this? Now...... what to do about it. Any suggestions?

Beauty's Where You Find It

May you find it in every direction you turn.

Chavez Kicks Some Bush Ass!

Before I share with you the following link, I want to speak a bit about my blog. It's true I post the writings of others and not always my own, BUT... the reason for that is I want you to read the best and the brightest. I am attempting to honor those pioneers of thought that just may be the ones to save us from ourselves. That being said, please check this out:

http://www.vheadlines.org/readnews.asp?id=46719

Bad News for Fundamentalist Christian Morons!

Breaking: The Bible is not all factual
Posted by Matthew Wheeland on November 4, 2005 at 12:10 PM.

It may seem shocking to those of us living under the reign of the so-called Christians that make up the extreme religious right here in the U.S., but earlier this month, Catholic bishops in England, Wales and Scotland announced that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
"We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision," the bishops write in a teaching text distributed to the faithful.
According to the bishops, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are among the made-up portions of the Bible. These are the big sections, the ones where God makes the Earth and humankind in six days.
Now we're told that these chapters "cannot be 'historical.' At most, they say, they may contain 'historical traces.'"
Even more shocking to these eyes are the reasons for this change of story. The Times story says the bishops have announced this new concept in order to stem the tide of intolerant religious fundamentalism, while this reader can't help but imagine said bishops gesticulating furiously in the direction of the United States. The bishops wrote:
"Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others."
And concerning Revelation, the scary, apocalyptic part of the New Testament, the bishops add:
"Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come."
Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins must be pissed. But don't worry, I'm sure our homegrown, intolerant Christian hatemongers will find a good way to get back and those English softies.
Be sure to check the end of the Times story, as it has an indispensible list of which parts are fake and which parts real.

Out of the mouths of babes..

My daughter asked me this really cool question. She said, "Mom, if we're supposed to be a democracy where majority rules, then why are we still in Iraq when the majority of Americans want us out?" What a mouthful. Why don't you take a minute and see if you can answer her question. It's not a trick question, so it should be easy. And, just for fun, let's apply the same democratic formula and ask ourselves why GWB is STILL in the whitehouse. Seen any good polls lately?

DENNIS, PLEASE COME BACK!

Democrats, Don't Ignore the War
By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet. Posted November 5, 2005.
National Democratic leaders have tried and tried again to pretend it's not happening -- and politically, it doesn't work. It's time for a true opposition party.
Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons. The war was unjustified, unnecessary and unprovoked. It is counterproductive, strengthening al-Qaeda and weakening the moral authority of the United States. It is deadly: Many Americans, and many, many more Iraqis, have been killed or injured as a result of the fighting. And it is costly: Well over $250 billion in taxpayer funds have already been spent, with no end in sight.
It is also increasingly unpopular. For all these reasons, plus the increased spotlight that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita put on how much the war is draining resources desperately needed at home, Democrats should clearly call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. If Democrats do not make this the centerpiece of their campaign in 2006, they risk repeating recent history, in which they failed to recover seats in the House and Senate.
National Democratic leaders have already tried, and tried again, to ignore the war, and it didn't work politically. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side -- the president's party always loses seats in the mid-term election -- the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the president to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. "Let no light show" between Democrats and President Bush on foreign policy was the leadership's strategy, and it yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a president increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.
Then, in 2004, with the president vulnerable on the war, the Democratic Party again sacrificed the opportunity to distinguish itself from Bush. Members avoided the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the Party platform, omitted it from campaign speeches and deleted it from the national convention.
Why is it an unconscionable political blunder to sweep the war and occupation of Iraq under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity all over the country.
President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to kill Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world.
Bush's war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our 9/11 losses. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the 9/11 attack. Instead, we are mired in an occupation which has already cost over 2,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis.
The issue of the war clearly distinguishes what is wrong with Republican rule. Republicans in Congress won't extricate the United States from the quagmire the president has gotten us into. They have refused to investigate what role the White House played in manipulating pre-war intelligence. They refused to investigate the Downing Street memo. Democrats, on the other hand, mostly voted against the war: Two-thirds of House Democrats and half of Senate Democrats opposed the war in Iraq. Democrats can draw no clearer distinction with the president and the Republican Congress than over this war.
Every major poll confirms that the war is a loser for the president and his party. Consider one of the most prominent: The ABC/Washington Post poll, which has surveyed public opinion on the war regularly since March 2003. Responses to all pertinent key questions clearly show eroding support for the war. Support for the president's handling of Iraq has steadily fallen; belief that the war was worth fighting has fallen; belief that the number of U.S. casualties are an acceptable cost of the war has steadily fallen; belief that the war has contributed to U.S. long-term security has steadily fallen, and support for keeping forces in Iraq has steadily fallen. There are no exceptions to this trend.
Right is on our side, and public opinion is trending our way. In 2006, Democrats must break from the past and run on the issue of quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. The stakes are high: Unless Democrats stand for ending the war in Iraq, this country will not leave Iraq, and Democrats their minority status in Washington, for a long time to come.
Of course, no party can win votes on the strength of one issue. Ending the war in Iraq must be at the centerpiece of a campaign that includes standing for national health care and preserving Social Security. This is the constellation of issues with which Democrats can take back the country.

PAY ATTENTION! See This Film!!!!!!

The Psyche of Suicide Bombers

In 'Paradise Now,' Palestinian filmmaker Hany Abu-Assad explores what motivates people to end their lives by killing others.

"Paradise Now" -- a film by Palestinian director Hany Abu-Assad, and shot on location in the West Bank and Israel -- aims to do what many viewers will certainly see as unimaginable: delve into the motivations and psyches of suicide bombers, attempting to humanize these young men and women who make the decision to kill and be killed.
In setting out to make a film that would explore the motivations of suicide bombers, Abu-Assad made a surprising discovery, he said during a recent round-table discussion with reporters: that anybody, in his eyes, could become a suicide bomber when placed in the same situation as the Palestinians.
"I was first of all surprised during the research that I found a lot of stories that are human stories. That I couldn't believe," he said in his rough English. "How stupid I was to think that they are not human beings, or they are different than me and you."
Following the lives of Khaled and Said, two young Palestinian mechanics who have been friends since childhood, "Paradise Now" focuses on what is to be their final days alive as they prepare for their long-anticipated suicide mission in Tel Aviv. The film also explores the role of Suha, a young woman educated in the West -- and Said's love interest -- in causing the friends to reconsider their plans.
The common belief is that suicide bombers are motivated purely by religious zeal, but Abu-Assad said he realized how different the suicide bombers are from one another and how complex their range of motivations is. His research included studying interrogation transcripts of failed suicide bombers and official Israeli reports, as well as talking to suicide bombers' friends and families. In doing so, Abu-Assad, a native Palestinian now living in the Netherlands, said he found that there is no typical suicide bomber; each has his or her own motivation, religious or not.
For Khaled and Said, signing on to a suicide mission is an automatic decision, something they'd each thought about for years. But they each have a different motivation. Khaled believes that attacking Israel would be a step toward liberating Palestine and releasing Palestinians like himself from crippling oppression. "If we can't live as equals, at least we can die as equals. In this life we're all dead," Khaled screams in a desperate debate with Suha.
Said's motivation is more personal: his father was executed by Palestinians for being an Israeli "collaborator." Israel does not just make his daily life miserable, as it does for Khaled; it killed his father, and with it his life. With the burden of his father's transgression on his shoulders, retaliation is the only answer, in his eyes. But if signing up for a suicide mission was easy for them, going through with it is another matter, and they spend the bulk of the movie debating whether to do it, each reversing his decision at least once. At one point, Said is about to board a bus when he sees a little Israeli girl and reconsiders. The audience remains in suspense until the very end of the film, unsure whether either of them will take that final step.
For Abu-Assad personally, retaliation in the form of suicide bombing does not solve the problem. The little Israeli girl on that bus never loses her status as a human. And, he said, civilian bus riders, who often are themselves poor, should not be the target of suicide missions, since they have no power to change Israeli policy. "You [the would-be bombers] are the poor people from the Palestinian society killing yourself for the poor people in the other society. You are not killing the people who are responsible for the policies," Abu-Assad said.
Shot in Nablus, Nazareth, and Tel Aviv in Arabic with English subtitles, the film's crew and cast members lived as vulnerably as the characters of the film. "In general the place was under siege, like people can't go in and out without permission of the Israeli army," Abu-Assad said. "And this made the place a bit unhealthy. People became paranoid. I became paranoid after some time."
Filming amidst rivaling factions -- one representing Palestinian Copts and the other calling itself the Freedom Fighters -- the cast and crew wondered how these two groups would react to the film. The Freedom Fighters, which Abu-Assad said, "want to fight for democracy and peace," provided the cast and crew with protection and minor suggestions on how to accurately portray them. But the fear escalated when the Palestinian Copts kidnapped a crewmember, whom they later released. Some crew members abandoned the shoot.
The Freedom Fighters were present during the filming of Khaled's and Said's martyr videos. Abu-Assad was worried they would interfere, fearing the videos were "not in their taste." However, their only interference was a suggestion on how actor Ali Sulaiman (Khaled) should hold his gun, which the Freedom Fighters actually loaned to the cast for that scene. Rather than rattling his nerves, the event revealed two signs, he said: "The first sign was that the content of the film is very close to reality. And secondly, I can be sure that every detail was done in an authentic way."
In these scenes of filming the martyr videos, Khaled struggles to recite his message as the camera repeatedly fails and the other men involved in the attack casually snack on some pita sandwiches. The lightness of the surrounding men's demeanor and behavior is incongruous to the intensity of the moment. Abu-Assad explained that downplaying the situation is "what they do in real (life)." By turning the moment into the simple act of signing a contract, "they make it as it's usual, it's not a big deal. They make from it, ok, this is a soldier who wants to commit an action he believes in," said Abu-Assad.
Abu-Assad's primary goal is creating a story, since a people's survival depends on the preservation of its story, he said. "The Jews survived because they kept their story. Two thousand years they kept their story," he said. In that story, Jews were the underdogs, but now their role in the narrative has flipped, he said. "They came back to tell their story, but from the oppression point of view. And with this they are losing their story."
Abu-Assad believes that Palestinians now have the opportunity and ability to harness the power of their own stories. The roles are reversed, "the underdog who refused to be a slave has become us now. We lost the land, we lost the military struggle, we lost everything," Abu-Assad said. And with nothing left, the Palestinians are forced to assert themselves through stories "We are not giving up. In contradiction, we are becoming more aware of ourselves and aware of our story.... We become part of history, of this story of humanity," said Abu-Assad.
In capturing the story of the Palestinians, Abu-Assad refers to Da Vinci's painting The Last Supper. With film as his medium, the scene is literally recreated in "Paradise Now" with the two suicide bombers and 11 others involved in the mission lined up at the table for the bombers' final feast. It was Abu-Assad's way of connecting suicide bombing to its roots in religious tradition. "To kill yourself with your enemy is a mythical story in the Bible," he said.
But while suicide bombing may trace its roots to religion, Abu-Assad said, today there is more to it than just the religious perspective. "I am retelling the story, but not anymore from the God point of view," he said. "I am repainting the painting, but from the now point of view."
That point of view is nothing if not upsetting. The film sets it up so that viewers spend much of its 90 minutes hoping that the young men find a way not to take that final step to supposed Paradise. But there's little redemption here, little sense that the violence of this bloody conflict is likely to abate anytime soon. To many, the mere act of humanizing suicide bombers is immoral, a form of justification. Abu-Assad, though, manages to pull it off by showing a point of view rarely aired in the West and depicting the situation as what it is: a tragedy.
Hala Shah is an intern at Beliefnet and a student at New York University
Official film website: http://wip.warnerbros.com/paradisenow/
And if you want to see still more about this film: http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0543,voiceover,69416,20.html

From Vheadlines.org ....

Published: Wednesday, November 02, 2005Bylined to: William M. Arkin
US Pentagon contingency planning for military conflict with Venezuela
Writing on National and Homeland Security in today's Washington Post, William M. Arkin says that the Pentagon has begun contingency planning for potential military conflict with Venezuela as part of a broad post-Iraq evaluation of strategic threats to the United States.
The planning has been precipitated by general and specific directives issued by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his civilian policy assistants.
Internal documents associated with the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and preparation of the fiscal year 2008-2013 future defense plan identify five specific "threat" countries in three groups requiring "full-spectrum" planning.
The first group includes North Korea and Iran, both justified for their involvement in the development of weapons of mass destruction. China is listed as a "growing peer competitor" and threat of tomorrow. Syria and Venezuela are listed as "rogue nations."
To call Venezuela a "rogue" nation, a retro-label usually reserved for the worst lawless regimes, is both lazy and small minded.
Relations between the US and Venezuela have deteriorated steadily since President Hugo Chavez, an anti-imperial populist, was elected in December 1998.
Chavez has become a champion of opposition to US policies and activities throughout the world, and has established closer relations with Russia, China and Iran. The Pentagon also believes that Chavez is encouraging revolutions in both Bolivia and Ecuador, as well as providing support for Columbian paramilitaries.
Though autocratic, Chavez has also presided over unprecedented growth in the Venezuelan economy, setting the stage for a significant increase in public services. Given solid resources and political backbone, Chavez has been able to keep much of his word to the poor, resulting in a level of domestic popularity that Karl Rove would kill for (that's a joke, Karl).
Military sources ascribe Venezuela's emergence on a list of actual military threats as a reflection of an important post 9/11 war reality: The events themselves of September 11 provide justification ... and perceived need ... to take risks in thinking about unanticipated threats. "The Global War on Terror is rightfully our near-term focus, but we certainly don’t want to be caught flat-footed by a series of other possibilities," says one Defense Department planning document.
Oil rich Venezuela provides approximately 15% of the oil imported to the United States.
Though most people believe that the United States has contingency plans for every country, this is far from the truth. In April 2004, Donald Rumsfeld signed the Top Secret Contingency Planning Guidance document that mandates that the military prepare 68 contingency plans in 11 "families" at four increasingly detailed levels. This "deliberative" planning process identifies countries like North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, and Syria for inclusion in conventional and nuclear plans.
But Rumsfeld also pushed the military to develop what is loosely described as "adaptive" plans, the preparations and systems necessarily to take military action in unanticipated contingencies.
According to a September Joint Chiefs of Staff document, "Since the U.S. cannot know with confidence which nation, combination of nations, and/or non-state actor(s) will pose a threat, DOD must focus planning and operations on how a potential adversary could threaten the US rather than on a specific adversary."
Rumsfeld's broad guidance to the military is to be prepared to handle four "persistent and emerging challenges," labeled as traditional, irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive. Current thinking is that the trends are away from adversaries who represent traditional military opponents and would attack in traditional ways towards "asymmetric methods and capabilities."
In this regard, Venezuela is identified in US Defense Department briefings and documents as a "pop up" threat, an example of an unanticipated and asymmetric challenge. In the military mind, Venezuela's proximity to the United States also elevates it to a "homeland security" threat, instantly increasing the priority for planning.
There is another bureaucratic reality of Venezuela as the pop up threat and recipient of contingency planner attention: US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), which is responsible for Latin America, needs something to do. Since 9/11, the Miami-based command has been robbed of much of its responsibilities for homeland and maritime security, relegated to doing little more than fighting the war on drugs. The al Qaeda terrorist threat in Latin America, which Rumsfeld's office was trumpeting in 2001 and 2002, has also proven to be a bust.
With Bush going to the Summit of the Americas in Argentina this week, the US-Venezuelan confrontation is once again sure to get a public airing.
Julia Sweig, director of the Council on Foreign Relations Latin America program and author of the forthcoming 'Friendly Fire: Anti-Americanism Gone Global and What to Do About It,' thinks the two countries remain on a collision course. She particularly worries about "the Cubanization of American policy towards Venezuela."
This is characterized, she says, by Chavez' rise and popularity partly attributable to a Cold War legacy in the hemisphere, while his behavior plays into the hands of those who are intent on polarization and concoction of military threats.
The good news, Sweig says, is also that "the two countries are stuck with each other," joined by oil and trade.
That strength ironically could also become the core strategic justifications for future war.
For the under-employed war planner Venezuela has everything to get the juices flowing: it has oil; it is leftist; it is critical of the United States; it is buying from the bad guys; it is in our own back yard.
From Scorpiano: I am hopeful that WE will not let the US go to war with Venezuela. We were deceived by the war in Iraq, let's not get fooled again. NOW is the time to stand up and say "NO!" And, say it as loudly as you can to anyone who will listen. GWB is creating "enemies" in order to line his pockets. We are the ONLY ones who can stop this. Let's do it!!!

TOO IMPORTANT NOT TO POST from Alternet.org

Lying and Dying Redux
By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. Posted November 1, 2005.

Another generation of American kids are dying and being maimed for life because someone in high office lied and then covered it up -- or, in this case, tried to cover it up.
There's only one story that's important today, and it's not President Bush's latest pick for the Supreme Court. It's this one:

Washington -- The National Security Agency has kept secret since 2001 a finding by an agency historian that NSA officers deliberately distorted critical intelligence during the Tonkin Gulf episode that helped precipitate the Vietnam War, according to two people familiar with the historian's work…The research by Robert Hanyok, the NSA historian, was detailed four years ago in an in-house article that remains classified, in part because agency officials feared its release might prompt uncomfortable comparisons with the flawed intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, according to an intelligence official familiar with some internal discussions of the matter. (Full Story)

Unfortunately, it took over 40 years to learn about this pertinent little fact. But only because Lyndon Johnson didn't have a Joe Wilson shooting off his mouth. So the evidence -- that the Vietnam War began on a lie -- stayed buried. Did Johnson know the alleged North Vietnamese attack on two of our destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf was pure fiction? Sure he did. In a candid moment, Johnson told then under-secretary of state George W. Ball, "Hell, those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish!"
"Rather than come clean about their mistake, they helped launch the United States into a bloody war that would last for 10 years," said Matthew M. Aid, an independent expert on the events leading up to the Vietnam War.
Did George W. Bush know the Niger documents were fakes? I don't know. But Dick Cheney sure as hell did, which is why he sent Scooter Libby out to smear Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie. Wilson was exposing the Bush administration's Tonkin Gulf lie -- that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. So here we are again, fighting an undeclared war thousands of miles from home. Another generation of American kids are dying and being maimed for life because someone in high office lied and then covered it up -- or, in this case, tried to cover it up.
Individuals in both administrations lied to begin a war, and then were comfortable with keeping their mouths shut about it while other people's kids died. Whether you are for this administration or against it, ask yourself: what kind of people do something like that?
I lived through the Johnson administration, and that first war - barely. Over 60,000 of my generation didn't. A lot of us suspected at the time that the war had been cooked up, but couldn't prove it. There was a draft back then, so we had little choice in the matter anyway. A lot of guys -- like me -- who opposed the war still ended up in the military, unless you had the right connections.
Forty years later, all America has to show for that war is a slab of polished black granite on the Mall in DC. All the families who lost loves ones in Vietnam have left is a name chiseled there to show they ever existed -- all for a lie.
Here we are again with a foreign war raging, kids and parents dying, again for a lie.
Considering it was way back in the 1960s when the NSA reports were doctored and then hidden, I don't find it surprising that they got away with it. Those were different times. Whistle blowers within government were a rarity.
When Nixon shouldered the war from Johnson he was determined not to let the lie destroy him as it had his predessor. He got elected by promising he had "a secret plan to end the war," which was of course another lie. That's why Nixon pulled out all the stops in to destroy former Pentagon analyst, Daniel EIlsberg when he leaked the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg did not have a wife working for the CIA, but he was seeing a shrink. So the Nixon gang broke into his shrink's office and stole his file, hoping they could prove he was crazy.
That was a long time ago. And the Tonkin Gulf lie was about to be revealed to the American people back in 2001, but it wasn't. Not because it would discredit America's credibility in Vietnam -- history has already taken care of that. No, it had to be kept secret because it was the Bush administration's playbook for justifying war on Iraq. The last thing frothing-at-the-mouth Neocons needed in 2001 was to have a near-identical intelligence cooking operation 41 years ago come to light. Most citizens assume their government lies to them. Seldom, though, do we get hard proof like that.
After being fed the fictional Tonkin Gulf attack reports, Congress dutifully passed a resolution giving President Johnson the right "to use force if necessary" in Vietnam. Sound familiar? No formal declaration of war as required by the US Constitution. Instead, a chickenshit resolution relieving individual members of Congress from the most important decision they were elected to make -- to take the nation to war.
Forty years later, Congress again ducked and covered, hiding from their constitutional obligation and passing a near identical resolution, giving President Bush the right to use "force if necessary" in Iraq. The first time Congress pulled that stunt, they got all those kids of my generation killed, not to mention a million or more Vietnamese. One would think a blood stain of that magnitude would have current members of Congress seeing the ghosts of members of the "Vietnam War Congress" wailing and prowling the halls, like hundreds of mournful Lady Macbeths. But no, they did it again.
In both Vietnam and Iraq, once the shooting started, all the responsible ones could do was bury their lies as deeply as possible. What else could they do once the dogs of war had been released? People were dying, first by the dozens, then by the hundreds, and then the thousands and tens of thousands. The higher the price in human life rose, the more important it became that the lie that caused those deaths remain hidden.
Which is precisely why Scooter Libby and Karl Rove were so awfully busy in June and July of 2003. And why they were willing to go so far as to threaten national security, not to mention Valerie Wilson's life.
After all, what else could they do? Joe Wilson wasn't seeing a shrink.

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

HUGO, you lost me on this one.....

"President Hugo Chavez cautioned Venezuelan parents to protect their children from Halloween with a spooky warning that the US tradition is rooted in "terrorism."
"What they have implanted here, which is really a 'gringo' custom, is terrorism," Chavez said, quoted in the local press. "They disguise children as witches and wizards, that is contrary to our culture."

Chavez often lashes out at the US government, which he has described as "terrorist" and accused of plotting his assassination. But this time his warnings were directed at the American celebration that combines costumes and candy.
He issued "an appeal for reflection by parents" not to encourage their children to dress up for the holiday.
His comments came after authorities in Caracas recently seized pumpkins, cardboard skeleton costumes and other traditional Halloween items inscribed with anti-Chavez messages.
US families were celebrating Halloween, during which disguised children go door to door saying "trick or treat," on Monday. "

OK, come on..... it's just innocent fun for little kids. Long ago it lost any religious connections that existed in the past. I mean, sure it's not really good. Kids in the US are overweight enough already, so encouraging them to gorge themselves on candy is probably a big mistake, but terriorism?! If you want us to take you seriously, Pres. Chavez, you won't take such weird positions on such inane topics. There happens to be some pretty serious stuff we could be talking about.

A Face NOT EVEN a Mother Could Love!