Cops Getting Surly in SF!

Times are as of right now!

US Pacific

3:30pm: The police are now rushing the rest of the crowd with riot gear.

3:20pm: According to reports, the breakaway march was stopped at 6th Street and Market by police, and after being surrounded, a handful of people have attempted to break through police lines and have escaped. The police have issued a warning that protesters will be "subject to batons" if they do not disperse, and around 20-30 protesters are now being arrested.

3:12pm The police have surrounded the protesters about 2 deep and have apparently surrounded an even smaller group of protesters about five deep. Protesters are chanting, "Let them go! Let them go!"

3:05pm: The breakaway march has begun to form a mass of over 500 people on Market Street between Nordstram's department store and Mason/Turk. The police are issuing an order to disperse.

2:52pm: According to reports, the breakaway march is heading east down Turk between Hyde and Leavenworth, complete with police escort.

2:50pm: Police officials are estimating that around 2,000 people have splintered away from the main mass in Civic Center Plaza and are taking off down Larkin Street.

2:35pm: While the crowd listens to Woody Harrelson speak, more people are still spilling into Civic Center Plaza.

2:20pm: The National Lawyers Guild has called into the radio station asking that people call their legal hotline for help with any legal problems stemming from actions at today's protest. The number is: 415-285-1011.

2:15pm: Police have formed a diagonal line through the crowd of thousands crowding into the intersection of Polk and Grove. It appears that they are trying to restrict anyone from the main march from splitting off and joining any breakaway marches.

2 pm: Photos Report of 6 different breakaway groups forming up.

1:15pm: March is at Van Ness and Market Street, with a confirmed report from ANSWER officials that the march is 50,000+ people, with both sides of Market Street completely shut down. About 200 police officers are marching at the front of the march, on the right side of the street, refusing to allow people to join the march from the right. They are creating a protective shield in front of the businesses lining the right side of the street, but don't seem too concerned about damage to any of the low-income housing units on the left side of Market. Call-outs are being made for people to break loose from the restrictive march and meet back up at 2pm for the breakaway march.

Link

Check out all the "M20" stuff happening.

Bad Rummy! Bad!

Clarke is expected to tesify on Tuesday before the 9/11 Commission.

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "We all said, 'But no, no, al-Qaida is in Afghanistan."

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."

A spokesman for Rumsfeld said he couldn't comment immediately.

Clarke makes the assertion in a book, "Against All Enemies," that goes on sale Monday. He told CBS News he believes the administration sought to link Iraq with the attacks because of long-standing interest in overthrowing Saddam Hussein; Clarke appears Sunday night on the network's "60 Minutes" program.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and the al-Qaida attacks in the United States, Clarke said in an interview segment that CBS broadcast Friday evening. "There's just no connection. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida."

Clarke also criticized President Bush for promoting the administration's efforts against terrorism, accusing top Bush advisers of turning a blind eye to terrorism during the first months of Bush's presidency.

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.

The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Clarke told CBS. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."

Quick color key:

Basic Text:*****

Distortions and/or Fabrications:*****

Criminal Negligence:*****

Oh, I have to watch Clarke on 60 minutes tomorrow evening.

Bush. Tough on terror?

"Until 9/11, counterterrorism was a very secondary issue at the Bush White House," said a senior Clinton official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Remember those first months? The White House was focused on tax cuts, not terrorism. We saw the budgets for counterterrorism programs being cut."

This is going to get really ugly.

House of Bush, House of Saud!

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to:

Listen to This

(Requires RealPlayer)

Or alternatively, download the 27MB Mp3 file of entire show here

And if you're interested in reading more, buy ↓ ↓..why yes, the book. :)



Yes, the image is a link.

Remember, a functioning democracy begins with you!

I finished a couple of hours ahead of schedule. YAY!

I'm trying to come up with a Bush quote form the last couple of days.

It was something like: 'Now we have to unite to keep Iraq free.'

I'd put double quotations marks around that, but I'm unsure as to his precise wording.

Could it be that Bush has seen the light? Does he now realize that he has divided the world, NATO, the U.S. ad infinitum?

Nah. But I can dream.

In 4:00 AM news..I'm off for the day. Until 5:00PM Eastern US time.

Open the discussion.

Cheers!

Okay...Ice cream and $20 dollar bills to the first ten respondents.*







* Void where prohibited :)

Feel the Love!

Read the 'review' from "A reader."

That folks, is a 21st century renaissance man.

As the 'review' is in danger of being overwhelmed by the others, I've ripped it to post here.

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

A reader from USA

I cannot tell you how much I hated this book and urge you to boycott it. I am a lifelong Republican and activist. My party stands for those who are successful, Christian minded, and controlling those who want to hurt American business.

- First of all, how dare you oppose Bush in not supporting of the glorious war and Crusade against non-Christian infidels? What's all this bull about WMDs? Saddam killed, so we killed, might makes right in any sensible mind. So all those who are against Bush are going to hell.
- Democrats are all renegade swine, quite frankly, and it's a crying shame they are even allowed to vote. Jesus would have supported Bush in his war against muslim sheep and cutting funds for people who are disabled, crippled, retarded, old, etc. It's their own fault, Bush didn't make these losers the way they are.
- So Bush didn't win the popular election; God wanted him to be President, God didn't trust the 'popular majority' and God wanted a military hero like Bush in office. Thank God for our unbiased Supreme Court.
- Furthermore, how dare you show narrow-minded animosity at Bush when he is a self made man. Don't believe those who say the US doesn't have enough jobs. If the Mexicans can find jobs, so can you. Republicans get better jobs because we know the game, know how to take advantage of the system, and because of our Godly contacts.

You should buy Anne Coulter books instead. She is the leading spokeswoman for the Republican party because she knows and speaks our truth. Quotes from her:
• "I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it....it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."-- Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01
• "...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start."-- Speech, 11/01, rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002
• "In his brief fiery ride across the landscape, Joe McCarthy bought America another thirty years. For this, he sacrificed his life, his reputation, his name. The left cut down a brave man, but not before the American people heard the truth."-- The Drudge Report, quoting from Coulter's new book, Treason, 6/19/03

• "We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons will get our opposition out of the way."-- Column, 9/25/02
• "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."-- Column, 9/13/01
• "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."-- Speech to Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002

• "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers enlist. Their choice in life; prison or the military. Some will have to die in the support of our cause."-- Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03
• "The only beef Enron employees have with top management is that management did not inform employees of the collapse in time to allow them to get in on the swindle."-- Column, 1/24/02
• "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."-- New York Observer interview, 8/20/02
• "Then there are the 39 million greedy geezers collecting Social Security. The greatest generation rewarded itself with a pretty big meal."-- WorldNetDaily, 12/10/03

My hero is the Ex-House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, GOP presidential prospect, and architect of the Republican Party's failed impeachment of President Clinton. He only failed because Newt was having an affair. Who could blame Newt, his wife went and got sick with cancer. That was completely different from Clinton.
Unlike Clinton, Newt was smart enough to divorce his wife after she got sick and could no longer drag him down with her.

Lastly, how dare you stumblingly expose your miscreant incompetence with rantings against the Patriot Act. In my mind
Some Americans have too many Constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights should not even apply to the blue-collar middle classes who are too stupid to get involved. No Bush hating media or newspapers should have 'freedom of the press,' since they only have their rights and freedoms because the rich allow them to have them. Ever see some poor slob or middle class idiot who owned a newspaper company?

You defamatory libelous, uneducated swine should keep your comments to yourselves or we'll send your job overseas. Go out and burn this book now! I'll pray everyone who buys this book will burn in hell!

This has to be a tongue-in-cheek review. It's all that is wrong with the extreme right. No one -- I hope -- is this extreme.

On Edit: A commenter alerted me that the Intervention Magazine is almost certainly groundless. He/She knew that the quote was attributed to Ann Coulter. I did not know this. I still think that the 'review' is great satire.

Reuter's Headline: Bush says Iraq differences are in the past

The 'doctrine of change of course' was in full effect today, as I heard Bush ramble on...and on...and on...about the Iraq war without once mentioning WMD.

He muttered something about weapons of mass terror falling into the hands of terrorists.

There are two statements that would be appropriate for this day. They are as follows:

1) We have now secured Saddam Hussein's vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction

or

2) We were wrong about Iraq's weapons capabilities, and I as commander-in-chief assume all responsibility for all the damage done.

A real leader would have been able to have made one of those statements today. Instead, we get 'the doctrine.' All that WMD talk doesn't matter you know. It's stale. Old news. We've moved beyond that issue. It no longer matters.

Michael Gordon writing for the NYT attempts to get inside the head(s) of terrorists. An interesting hypothesis.

Does Mr. Gordon's notion have any basis in reality? I think that the honest answer is that no one outside of the terrorist community and possibly the intelligence communities can say with any level of certainty.

His simple idea has great appeal as a reason behind the Spanish bombings. However, that does not make it any more real.

Give it a read, and ponder.

I see that the White House is Denying any Role in the Medicare Cost 'Issue'

From Democracy Now! and this has since been picked up by other news sources:

.....Until now the Bush administration has rejected Foster's accusations. But the Wall Street Journal has obtained an email sent to Foster that explicitly said to share his findings only with his supervisor and quote "No one else." The message went on to say "The consequences for insubordination are extremely severe." Meanwhile in other news related to the Medicare vote, the House ethics committee announced Wednesday it will begin a formal inquiry into claims by Michigan Republican Congressman Nick Smith that Republican leaders tried to bribe him and threaten him in order to win his vote on Medicare. After hours of wrangling, Smith voted with the Republican leadership and the Medicare bill passed by one vote........[snip]

Lies, Lies and damned lies. How do they expect to explain this away? The WSJ is hardly a 'lefty' news outlet.

Kerry - McCain Pt. 3 Strange Bedfellows

There are Repugs that can tell the truth. They're just hard to find. Before you email me, yes, I know that McCain was one of the "Keating Five." :)

More Iraq.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Amid a spree of attacks on hotels, the U.S. Army commander of Baghdad on Thursday said while the coalition is winning the war, there's no end in sight to Iraq's reign of terror and that "there's not enough concrete in the hemisphere" to defend every hotel in the capital.

"We are putting in place the mechanisms to defeat terror," said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey, overall commander of U.S. operations in Baghdad, disclosing that nearly half of the 47,000 security forces in the capital are Iraqis who are equipped, trained and vetted by the coalition to someday police their own country.

Meantime, he said, both civilians and coalition forces must "be on the offensive. You cannot sit back and wait for a terrorist to pick the point of his choosing."

Dempsey said U.S. raids by his 1st Armored Division had just captured an unidentified Jordanian with links to Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, the man coalition officials frequently blame as the mastermind for murderous attacks on Iraqis designed to disrupt coalition cooperation.

But a car bomb blew up in broad daylight Thursday outside a hotel in the southern city of Basra, killing three bystanders near the building sometimes used by British coalition forces. Gunmen also opened fire on a minibus in Baquoba, northeast of Baghdad, killing three Iraqi television journalists and wounding nine others who work at a coalition-sponsored station.

Hours later, insurgents again mortared the Green Zone where coalition officials are managing the occupation, sending booms and sirens echoing through the night. Almost simultaneously, rockets or mortars rattled the Karrada district, near two hotels, one called the Sinbad Palace that has been popular with visiting Kurds. No casualties were immediately reported.

Lots more at link

In case you're wondering, all of this has taken place since the Lebanon Hotel bombing.

Also on the wires is the story that at least nine returned GIs have committed suicide since coming back from Iraq. If I can pull together enough information, I'll write up a bit. I'm sure you'll hear more about this in the coming days.

Suicide bombers. Unknown in Iraq until a year ago.

Compare and contrast.

Iraqi suicide bombings:

The cycle began nine days after fighting erupted, and has claimed at least 660 lives – far more than in 3½ years of Israel-Palestinian suicide attacks – according to U.S. military officials.

The majority of victims are Iraqis, the U.S. military said. Iraqi officials and police put the death toll higher by at least 100.

Israeli-Palestinian suicide bombings:

In comparison, since September 2000, 474 people -- the majority Israelis -- have been killed in 112 Palestinian suicide bombings.

Much more at link.

Hard to know what to say. We must never let another incident like Iraq happen again. Ever.

Tony recuse himself from a case involving his ol' huntin' buddy Dick? NEVER!

Tony spent 21 pages to say 'no.'

Democracy, it was fun while it lasted.

Slate political chief William Saletan sometimes very good, other times seemingly daft, has really done a fine job in framing the early election rhetoric.

Again, the best bits are towards the bottom. It's difficult to mine bits from the piece as it's a well woven one. Everything relies on all the other parts. If you can't read it, and you should, here is an excerpt that is a tongue-in-cheek condemnation of Kerry for his 'foreign(or is that 'more?') leaders' gaffe. There are few pieces I have read as of late that make me wish that I had written them. This is one of those:

You get the message. Kerry's been spending time with the wrong sort of people. What's good for them must be bad for you. This is the message segregationists delivered to white voters 50 years ago about white politicians who met with blacks. "Foreigners" were the subjects of a different message: McCarthyism. Cheney's speech combines the two: What is Kerry saying to our enemies that makes them so supportive of his candidacy?

"Of the many nations that have joined our coalition [in Iraq]—allies and friends of the United States—Sen. Kerry speaks with open contempt," Cheney went on. What was Cheney's evidence for this charge? "Sen. Kerry calls these countries, quote, 'window dressing,' " said the vice president. "Italy, which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf—was Italy's contribution just window dressing?" Cheney concluded that Kerry "speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect."

There you go. Kerry points out what everyone knows: The Iraq war was an American operation dressed up as a "coalition of the willing," in which Britain was the only other country to play a major role. Cheney calls this "contempt" for "friends of the United States." Nineteen Italians get killed in a war that Bush and Cheney started against the will of most Italians, but it's Kerry, not Bush, who has shown contempt for Italy and other "friends of the United States." Better yet, the foreign leaders with whom Kerry has consorted don't just oppose Bush's policy in Iraq; they "oppose America's objectives." If Jacques Chirac imagines that what he opposed in Iraq was Bush's method of achieving objectives shared by France, he fails to understand that Bush's policies, by definition, are America's objectives.

Indeed. Good show, Mr. Saletan.

The bombing tragedy in Iraq yesterday is a real mystery. There are at least four differing accounts of how many died. The U.S. seems to consistently have the highest numbers of dead.

I can speculate as to why I think that's the case, but I'll keep such thoughts to myself.

Another thing is the instant al-Qaeda link. There certainly may be a link, but until a positive link is established, the major news outlets are again acting as mouthpieces for the White House -- or maybe it's the IGC this time -- and we know how poorly they did their jobs over WMD.

It's not better to be first and inaccurate. If I did my job in the careless manner of our press corps, I'd be looking for a new one.

A Coalition of One?

Poland feels misled over Iraq WMD. So goes the headline from Reuters.

As always, we look toward the bottom of articles to see what's there. We find:

GROWING DOUBTS?

Poland, the biggest ex-communist country joining the European Union in May, is a staunch U.S. ally.

It has steadfastly defended NATO's role in European security and risked the wrath of France and Germany by backing the military campaign launched nearly a year ago that ousted Saddam.

Unlike in many other European countries, Polish public opinion was initially in favour of intervening in Iraq.

And many Poles were proud the United States picked the former Warsaw Pact stalwart to run one of the stabilisation zones there.

But continued violence in Iraq has dented support for the mission and some right-wing and populist parties have raised their voices in demanding that troops be pulled back.

Poland's discomfort also grew when the incoming Spanish government signalled it was going to adopt the French and German line on Iraq, leaving Poland more isolated ahead of a crucial EU summit next week.

These 'defections' by 'our allies' must be very troubling to Washington. Now that Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski has siad that he feels misled, there is no way of knowing how this is going to play out.

There must be long faces in the White House right now.

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

pure bs Thanks! Thanks to everyone that has mailed me about the potential capture of Ayman al-Zawahiri. As it is all over the news, it's really not my beat. Once confirmed or refuted, I'll be sure to post something about it. Thanks Again!

An absolute must listen. Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now! interview Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud

A truly amazing interview. The book is now on my short list of must reads.

Racist? Xenophobe? Maybe we haven't evolved enough. Maybe.

Now that we may know why, it seems likely that we can ameliorate our impulses.

We must certainly try.

pure bs personal anecdote!

I just finished with my accountant...tax preparation.

I feel ill.

Quick links:

Zapatero on Wednesday described the U.S. occupation of Iraq as "a fiasco" and suggested American voters should follow the example set by Spain and change their leadership by supporting Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts for president in November.

Compare and contrast

Cheney on Kerry

Kerry on Kerry

Dick Cheney. Unabashed war profiteer. 5 Vietnam Deferments..at least 4. That's part of the record. Oh, that's crass. Sorry.

Deficit Pigeons Reads like something I might have written. Yes, Virginia. Deficits do matter.

Note: If you don't have an account with WaPo, just right click on the link, copy and paste the address into Google's search form hit enter, and click on the link. Google referrals are Washington Post friendly.

While there has been much speculation as to why top rated search engine Google recently changed its search algorithms in a number of ways, we may have found out today.

It now seems higly likely that Google did so as a pre-cursor to the roll-out of a search service tailored to enable a more localized search. Yes, physical location.

From the article:

The new algorithmic formulas, scheduled to begin working Wednesday, will allow Google to display more local information in response to search requests that include a ZIP code or a city's name.

Google says these geographic queries will now be more likely to generate phone numbers and specific addresses on its main results page. In many cases, Google also will display an icon of a compass that can be clicked upon to open another page containing a detailed map and directions to the location.

Web surfers who want a broader selection of parochial information will be encouraged to visit a new gateway, http://local.google.com.

"Google's goal is to connect searchers with the information they need whether it's halfway around the world or in their neighborhood," said company co-founder Sergey Brin..........[snip]

Mountain View-based Google believes it will have a major advantage over its other rivals--the Internet's biggest index, consisting of 4.3 billion Web pages........[snip]

Three things.

This move makes perfect sense in light of the 'Google dance' that has left webmasters scratching their heads as to why their ad placements have fallen as of late.

Sure it's about more exacting searches, but it's more about tapping into the $22 billion USD spent annually by businesses on local ads in print and other media.

Lastly, the Internet Archive has over 11 billion pages indexed. Just to split hairs :)

UPDATE: test drives available

Halliburton Hell

Dow Jones is reporting that Halliburton is going to withhold 15% of payments to Iraqi contractors if the task order has not been definitzed. Simply that parties to a contract have not signed off on a price.

link to article

I am told by someone that is an attorney, but doesn't specialize in this branch of law, that the terms of the agreements are illegal under international law. She said it was to keep the occupying power from basically ripping off the locals.

My live-in attorney is going to be on the case tomorrow. I'll report back with findings.

Anytime neocon Dov Zakheim says, "this shows the system is working." Be afraid. Be very afraid.

From Reuters.

In a statement sent to al-Hayat(London Arabic Newpaper(?)), the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades who claimed responsibility for the Spanish bombings, called on its "European units" to stop all operations.

The way Reuters typically puts out its web version, you usually get to the best material on the second page towards the bottom. That's where I find much of my material for this blog..the last few paragraphs of articles are usually a good place to hide otherwise embarassing facts, or in this case, speculation.

The statement to al-Hayat reportedly reads:

WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

link to article

You make the call. Truth is truly stranger than fiction. If this is indeed truth.

Cronkite's In

The contempt of the Bush administration for environmentalists and their concerns is well known by now. While evidence of man - made environmental damage mounts, the Bush team resists its implications like a defeated army whose rear guard fights off its pursuers as it retreats. That has been especially true of its handling of the most serious of all environmental issues - global warming.

First, the administration claimed that global warming was the work of liberal hysterics and had been discounted by "more sober scientists." Then, it admitted that it was happening but said there was no proof humans caused it, or could fix it.

Retreat No. 3 was the White House discovery that, yes, indeed, some of the warming was due to human activity, and we should take steps, say, to reduce emissions, but those steps should be voluntary on the part of industry.

There are two scientific theories that have been gaining credence in recent years that challenge the sanity of that kind of resistance to fact - and make no mistake about it, global warming is a fact.

Both theories begin with a phenomenon that is taking place right now. Scientists are beginning to understand climate as a complex interactive system that is affected by everything from the emission of greenhouse gases, to deforestation, to the condition of Arctic and Antarctic glaciers.

Much more at link

First of all, you shouldn't listen to me, or Walter Cronkite about the dangers of global climate change. But what he says about Bush's handling of global climate change is certainly accurate.

The world's foremost climatologists and paleo-climatologists are the people that you need to seek out to have the science confirmed. It isn't hard to do. The National Academies of Science have good information available, as well as myriad other sources.

Check out MoveOn.org's new commercial Polygraph

Requires Quicktime, and broadband will help.

Clear Channel = Islamophobia?

I guess there are certain groups it's still okay to make fun of. After all, it's entertainment, right? The poop:

WASHINGTON, March 17 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - The U.S. largest radio chain is to apologize on air for an Islamophobic skit that claimed Muslims have sex with animals, avoid bathing and are obsessed with killing Jews, an official of Clear Channel Communications station KFI said on Tuesday, March 16.

"In the process, we unwittingly offended a lot of people, and for that we are very sorry," KFI Program Director Robin Bertolucci told Reuters on Tuesday.

In the March 10 Bill Handel show on the station, a pretend "Muslim" allegedly reading from the new Iraqi constitution refers to "hairy Iraqi women," "lovely Japanese schoolgirls," the "infidel custom of bathing on a regular basis," and "civil unions" between Iraqis and "loving camels and goats".

Throughout the skit, the mock Muslim repeatedly stated "Allah be praised," "death to the Jews" and "kill all Jews."

Another part, he said, granted Iraqi men 72 virgins when they entered heaven, adding: "the virgins, however, will not be hairy Iraqi women but lovely Japanese schoolgirls".

A third section banned Western teachings from the country, including "the infidel custom of bathing on a regular basis", the fake scholar claimed.

The performer added that a section of document read: "Consenting civil unions between Iraqis and loving camels and goats will be recognized".

"That was not our intention. Our intention was to be satirical," Bertlucci said.

Islam stipulates no war between Muslims and Jews across the world, looks upon Jews and Christians with special regard as peoples of the book and prohibits killing civilians regardless of their faith.

Islam also calls for Muslims to be as clean as tidy, with one religious saying stressing that cleanliness is part and parcel of the religion.

'We Are Tired'

The would-be apology comes after a Islamic rights group has filed a federal complaint against the Los Angeles talk radio station.

Sabiha Khan, a spokeswoman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said her group filed the complaint after KFI and Handel initially refused to apologize.

"We're tired of being stepped all over and being made fun of over airwaves," she said.

"No American should ever have to take this type of treatment," she added.

Khan said the skit obviously "crossed the line from comedy to outright bigotry and racism that could negatively impact the lives of ordinary American Muslims".

Much more at link I only found out about this because I check IslamOnline daily. A search on Google yields nada. I'm going to send this to a few progressive media outlets and see if it gets picked up. That'll be telling.

"Why do they hate us?" Well, I don't think that the vast majority do. Certainly airing garbage like this isn't going to win you any friends amongst any group.

Pathetic.

They are still waiting for their apology!!

As if we needed yet another reason to be against media consolidation.

pure bs Going Global Today!

I'm taking a break from U.S. politics in order to give you, my worthy readers a look at some stories that don't seem to be getting any play from our major media outlets(at least not that I have seen).

As we noted last evening, Bush has called for the 'coalition of the willing' to remain together. Honduras, and now the Netherlands are out as of June 30. El Salvador and Guatemala may be the next to go. President Bush has called a meeting of some 60 ambassadors to the White House in order to shore up support. Relink to LA Times story

Additionally, Australian PM John Howard is reportedly facing pressure from two sides. The Aussie voters who think "it's time"(that Howard go) and from popular resistance to the invasion of Iraq. One Aussie journo called it the "khaki election." I think that sums it up. No longer is it merely the economy, as it is in most elections, but a combination of economic feeling amongst the electorate coupled with a sense of fear. Sad, but likely true.

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

This Saturday, 20 03 2004 groups around the globe are preparing to protest the one year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Interested in taking part? United for Peace and Justice should give you all the info. you need. Be safe!

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

In the results of a global poll released yesterday, opinion of the U.S. has fallen to its lowest level ever. The Pew poll -- cited in the survey -- is but three years old. A similar European poll that has been tracking U.S. sentiment abroad is over two decades old.

Here's a snippet:

The survey, the largest of its kind, found slipping support for the U.S. war on terrorism in Europe and negative views of the United States in all foreign countries polled except Britain. Big majorities said that the United States does not consider other countries' interests and that Europe should develop more diplomatic and military independence.

Majorities in seven of the eight foreign countries said the war in Iraq hurt or had no effect on the war on terrorism, and only in the United States did a majority believe that the ouster of Saddam Hussein will make the Middle East more democratic.

The nonpartisan Pew Research Center, which conducted the survey, said the image of the United States in the world has never polled lower. "This poll says to me the discontent with America is a long-term problem that U.S. leaders have to confront," said poll director Andrew Kohut. "We've never seen ratings as low as this for America."

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


That's all for global politics for the moment. I think I'll keep this linked to and add things to it on a regular basis.

Quote of the day:

"The recent bombing in Spain may well be evidence of how fearful the terrorists are of a free and democratic Iraq." -- Dick Cheney 03/17/2004

Does anybody listen to Cheney's debunked neocon bizarro worldview?

I certainly hope not.

Makes good satire, though.

I just saw some released footage taken by a drone in Afghanistan in 2000. It shows a tall guy in white milling about in Afghanistan. Might be bin Laden, might not. Here's a link to an article

Oh, I should note that this was on CNN Headline News during my lunch hour.

Approx. 12:30PM EST US time.

Additionally, The bombing of the Lebanon Hotel in Baghdad is a true crime against all of humanity. It's a horricfic scene.

Do we really need another White House Investigation?

I wonder. On a cost/benefit ratio, is it cheaper to impeach Bush, or let these what 14(?) investigations run their full course?

I for one, am getting sick of the White House's scandal of the week. Fire the Liars!

CIA behind actions in Syria? Somebody thinks so.

Chalabi and Friends

The Knight- Ridder Washington Bureau is reporting that the Iraqi National Congress routinely fed exaggerated or fabricated intelligence on Iraq to dozens of media outlets in the U.S. and around the world before the Iraq invasion. In June of 2002 the INC sent the Senate Appropriations Committee a list of just over 100 news articles about Iraq that were based on information provided by the INC's Information Collection Program, which was funded by the U.S. government.

The articles asserted Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Osama Bin Laden.

Most of the information came from the same half-dozen defectors whose information was questioned by the CIA and State Department.

Follow the link. Dozens of news agencies were fed garbage on our tab. This isn't very pretty. This is pathetic. Neocon orgasm gone bad.

Mercury Emissions Rule Geared to Benefit Industry, Staffers Say

Essentially, political appointees side-stepped the EPA's professional staff -- the scientists! -- and a federal advisory panel last year to craft a rule on mercury emissions favorable to industry and the White House. Nice.

Kerry's team should be all over this bs. This is extreme.

Despite Bush's pleas to hold the 'coalition of the willing' together, Honduras is out. 370 soldiers are going home in June.

While I was at the LA Times looking for an article about the politicization of science, I found this:

Clinton Tries to Unify Party Behind Kerry

By Maria L. La Ganga, Matea Gold and James Gerstenzang
Times Staff Writers

2:24 PM PST, March 16, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO — Former President Bill Clinton, one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party and one of the most polarizing across the political landscape, took on a leading role today in an intense, 10-day effort to unify party members behind John Kerry's presidential campaign — and to contribute to it.

Clinton was being joined by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and at least half a dozen other party leaders and strategists in an effort to level the playing field against the record-setting fundraising President Bush has accomplished. The Democrats' goal is to raise $10 million in 10 days. Bush is trying to run up his overall total to $170 million.

The Clinton work is leading up to a party fundraiser late next week at which he and former President Jimmy Carter will be the leading speakers.

Clinton's role is something of a gamble for Kerry, already embroiled in a tough and nasty contest with Bush. As appealing as Clinton is to many Democrats, Republicans have grown accustomed to using him to personify the traits and policies that most grate on their core supporters.

Experts on the presidency are unanimous in their belief that Clinton's fundraising prowess will be a boon, but beyond that his impact is unclear.

Clinton "will help energize the base and loosen the dollars from the donors. That's what he's being brought in to do," said Stephen Wayne, professor of government at Georgetown University and author of "The Road to the White House." "He can bring in a large African American and Hispanic voter turnout."

Beyond that, Clinton — at least for Democrats — may be coming to personify the economic well-being that marked his years in office, as well as the role the United States played in the world then. And, Wayne said, his enduring popularity among Democrats and some other voters has transcended the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment vote that grew from it.

Much more at link

I was never a Clinton fan. He's a liar. But, given the appalling record of the Bush Administration, anything that he can do in terms of money or logistical aide is welcomed.

TPM's Josh Marshall on The Hill. He is casting a bit of light on Kerry's 'foreign leaders' gaffe.

Just consider a few facts.

The record of foreign elections over the last two and a half years is telling. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a foreign leader who has supported Bush in any high-profile way and then survived a national election. True, it’s hard to find many examples beside Jose Maria Aznar. But that’s because it’s hard to find any foreign heads of state who have been supporters of the president.

More revealing is how many foreign heads of state and candidates for national office from traditional American allies have successfully played the anti-Bush card in their election campaigns.

The clearest examples are President Roh Moo-hyun, who won election two years ago in South Korea as the first South Korean presidential candidate to openly question the U.S.-ROK security alliance, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who pulled out a razor-thin victory in his 2002 re-election campaign by campaigning against Bush’s Iraq policy.

Washington has tended to view Schroeder’s gambit as cynical and craven, particularly for the leader of a country that has been so closely allied to the United States for half a century. But there’s seldom a shortage of craven or cynical politicians in the world. For understanding America’s current standing in the world, the key point is not so much that Schroeder was or wasn’t craven as that his tactic was successful.

Nor is it much of a surprise.

As Fareed Zakaria — hardly a lefty or a Bush-hater — noted a year ago, the president’s policies have "alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it."

For anyone who follows foreign policy even remotely closely, it has to be close to a given that the overwhelming majority of foreign heads of state and foreigners in general hope that Bush will be heading back to Crawford next January.

The president’s deep unpopularity among foreigners and foreign governments is a fact that either campaign could probably use to its advantage. But the fact itself can’t be denied.

link to entire piece

The record is clear. Side with Bush, and you'll likely be on the outside looking in.

I can see this as being a major win for Bush in that we, as Americans don't need anybody. I can see this as being a major win for Kerry in that we, as Americans now need everybody.

I would not speak without bringing up the environment. Just a bit at first, to get people accustomed to hearing about it. I'd then link it to higher energy costs, and global security. In a race as likely to be as close as this, it is THE issue that Bush is absolutely naked, and indefensible against.

Bush and Kerry can volley other points around, but Bush is a polluter. Kerry would do well to start making noise about the environment. By November, he can MAKE it an issue. I would.

I almost forgot. Krugman!.

I see Bush is trying to circle the wagons in an attempt to keep 'the coalition of the willing' together.

Oh, man. I am putting together another verbose piece about the conventional wisdom surrounding the Spanish election outcomes, and how, just maybe -- the conventional wisdom is wrong.

Let's face it, if Bush wins in November, it will be largely because al-Qeada attacked us on our soil under his watch. How perverse is that? Other than that, his Administration has been a slash and burn politick.

Joseph Wilson. Follow the link.

Wilson properly reframes the homeland defense debate.

Hard to believe that the White House would use this seemingly honorable man and his wife in their character assassination/ smear campaign. No. I take that back. It isn't hard to imagine at all.

It infuriates me to no end.

The Bush tactic de jour appears to be to ask Kerry to do the unthinkable. That is to name foreign leaders that may have told him in confidence that they would like to see a regime change in Washington.

As if that's about to happen.

If I was Kerry, I'd reply by saying: "I'm going to have to work directly with these people in January and beyond. I can't be breaking the bond of trust we have now."

Then the impish side:

"Surely the sitting president knows how valuable secrets are. Shall I list them for you?"

What I am waiting for is for Bush to tell people why they should vote for him, rather than the other guy. So far, I haven't heard anything that makes me feel that Bush should keep his job.

Bogus Polling?

In a CBS poll released today Bush leads Kerry 46% to 43%.

Okay, no problem.

What is curious about the poll is what respondents reportedly said in response to questions other than who are you likely to vote for in November.

36 percent of respondents believe the economy will "get better" under Kerry, while only 30 percent believe it will "get better" in a second Bush term.

Advantage: Kerry

23 percent of respondents believe the economy will "get worse" under Bush, while only 11 percent believe it will deteriorate under Kerry.

Advantage: Kerry

A full 47 percent of Americans said the administration's policies have caused the number of jobs to decrease, while only 14 percent said Bush's policies have created jobs.

Advantage: Kerry

Direction of the country -- 54 percent of respondents said the country is on the wrong track, while 38 percent said the country is on the right track.

Advantage: Kerry

Percentage of people who think the economy is "getting better" is waning. 28 percent now think the economy is improving, compared with 33 percent in February.

Advantage: Kerry

Economy's direction -- 27 percent think the economy is "getting worse," which was unchanged from February.

Since the number is unchanged, I'll call it a toss-up.

War in Iraq -- 42 percent of respondents said the conflict was "worth it," while 51 percent said it was "not worth it."

Advantage: Kerry

Economic decisions -- almost six in 10 said they are uneasy about Bush's ability to make economic decisions, while four in 10 said they were confident.

Advantage: Kerry

Ability to deal wisely with an international crisis -- almost half, 46 percent, said they were uneasy about Bush, and about Kerry, 48 percent.

Advantage: Statistical tie

Ability to deal with an international crisis -- 53 percent said they were confident in Bush's ability, while only 33 percent said that about Kerry.

Advantage: Bush

That's as much as I could mine without the raw polling data.

I have to wonder what the respondents would have answered if asked; "who is most likely to cause an international crisis?" That would be a hoot.

No questions on the environment? That's just irresponsible.

The NYT has some numbers.

I'll never figure out the electorate.

Disturbing if true.

From the S.F. Chronicle regarding the White House's tactics to sell the Medicare Law:

In order to sell the complicated and skimpy plan to seniors, the Department of Health and Human Services is paying actors to pose as journalists in bogus TV "news'' reports. Videos have been sent to TV stations, along with government-prepared scripts for news anchors to read. The idea is to make propaganda appear to be unbiased news during prime-time viewing.

The above is just a snippet. This was listed as an Op-Ed. The piece reads like hard news.

I have no idea whether or not it's factual. It does fit within a larger pattern of deceit that this Administration is becoming rather infamous for, but that doesn't make it true. We'll wait and see if there is confirmation before we admonish the White House over their latest.

A snapshot of the employment picture via Krugman:

But wait — hasn't the unemployment rate fallen since last summer? Yes, but that's entirely the result of people dropping out of the labor force. Even if you're out of work, you're not counted as unemployed unless you're actively looking for a job.

We don't know why so many people have stopped looking for jobs, but it probably has something to do with the fact that jobs are so hard to find: 40 percent of the unemployed have been out of work more than 15 weeks, a 20-year record. In any case, the administration should feel grateful that so many people have dropped out. As the Economic Policy Institute points out, if they hadn't dropped out, the official unemployment rate would be an eye-popping 7.4 percent, not a politically spinnable 5.6 percent.

The 750 word Op-Ed

I'm not really interested in Bush's Guard records, but if you simply HAVE to fill in his missing year, the Human Reliability Program offers just such an opportunity.

I'm just tossing this out there as it is a fascinating read. Since there is no evidence to support that Lt. Bush was ordered grounded under the HRP, it is of no consequence to me. It is the process that I found fascinating.

I'll just file this one under 'military protocols I learned about while scouring the internet.'

Got a couple of minutes? Read Me

Bush is really a one trick pony. How does the ad go? "Steady leadership in times of change." Yes, that's it.

What it means is rather nebulous. I think that is by design.

Kerry is trying, and I think that he has had some success in undermining Bush's "steady leadership" assertion.

I will say, that this election campaign is already pretty ugly. I'm not really proud of either man's conduct.

Kerry was bashing Bush on domestic security today, saying "Time and again, George Bush has failed to give those fighting the war on terror -- whether they're overseas or here -- the weapons, equipment, and support they need."

"When it comes to protecting America from terrorism, this administration is big on bluster and short on action. But as we saw again last week in Spain, real action is what we need."

I think Kerry's really overstating the case here, but if I wasn't as well informed, I'd be likely to listen to what he's saying. What he is saying is that W is not the guy to protect you. I am.

Striking first has its advantages. The Bush team is likely off-guard by the Kerry attacks. These are pretty serious charges Kerry is leveling at Bush. If they go unresponded, they'll likely resonate well with voters -- regardless of their accuracy.

There is definitely blood in the water. This is likely to be a bare-knuckle slugfest before it's over.

"You don't need to be a weatherman
to know which way the wind blows." -- Bob Dylan

This weekend 20 Mar 2004 over 200 U.S. events are planned protesting the Iraq war and occupation.

With the defeat in Spain of the popular Prime Minister José María Aznar by the Socialist opposition, led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, this has to be viewed by the Bush administration as a condemnation of its Iraq policies.

Until the bombings, it appeared that Aznar's conservative Popular Party would win. With hints that Islamic militants might be responsible for the bombings, the stage was set for Aznar's defeat. From all reports it is felt that the Spanish feel that Aznar's support for the Iraq war was responsible for Spain being targeted by Islamic militants. Be it al-Qeada or another group.

No matter how the White House spins this, they must be very disappointed by the outcome of the Spanish elections. If by being aligned with the U.S. is equated to increased terrorist threats, it doesn't bode well for Bush's chances in November. I think that most people know that in order to fight global terror, we need allies. Under the Bush administration we have squandered a great amount of unity.

It remains to be seen if the next inhabitant of the White House can rebuild those bridges that are so important to all of our security.

UPDATE: Serious dose of rhetoric from Spain's incoming PM

Special Mention

Newly added blog New World Blogger is a fascinating and uplifting look at the 'third world.' Blogger Victoria affirms life through her lens as a true citizen of the world. I was going to link to one article on the site, but in this case, it's all terrific.

Be sure to check it out.

Fear and Loathing on Wall Street

U.S. industrial production grew at a higher than anticipated rate in February, while terrorism fears were the cited cause for today's sharp pullback in equities prices.

I don't buy it. I think that there are deeper issues at play here. This far into an economic expansion without meaningful jobs growth is as likely to be a driver as terrorism fears. The Spanish bombings were no doubt a catalyst of sorts, but Wall Street seems to adopting a 'show me' attitude towards further economic growth in the U.S.

Only with real gains in jobs growth and earning power will Wall Street likely make the next leg up in this rally. Terrorism in and of itself is not a real threat to global markets. It does bring a level of level of uncertainty to the markets, which is generally a negative sign.

Today's equities action was undermined by the terrorist actions in Spain. But there are much larger issues out there. A lot of money was taken out of the market today. This is the continuance of a trend that started towards the end of January.

2003 was a banner year for equities. Institutions are sitting on big gains. It doesn't require much of a catalyst for them to move to cash positions.

Longer term, we shall see. I think the real intermediate term threat to equities prices gas to be energy costs. This directly effects purchasing power. From you and me, to the biggest corporations. I'm going to play it safe right now, and stay as liquid as I am.

Too much risk to reward ratio for me to commit new money to the markets.

UPDATE: Bob over at Chum Bucket correctly adds that terrorism, which in Greenspan speak is 'increased geo-political risk' undermines investor confidence. That point is certainly worth adding. Thanks, Bob!

The White House is calling on Kerry to name the foreign leaders that allegedly told him that they are behind a regime change in Washington.

Of course, Kerry declined. McClellan reportedly said:

"If Senator Kerry is going to say he has support from foreign leaders, then he needs to be straightforward with the American people and say who it is that he has spoken with and who it is that supports him."

If Kerry refuses then he is probably: "making it up."

I have no idea if Kerry's allegations are true. But the fact that the White House has responded to them, lends them an air of credibility. Converse to McCllelans' public admissions.

I saw Kerry's television ad today at lunch. I'd say it was pretty neutral. Not at all like the attack dog tactics used by the GOP.

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

In my post below, I question the White House's motives for sending Rumsfeld(does anybody believe a thing this guy says?), Powell(thoroughly discredited at the U.N. using known garbage in front of the Security Council), and Rice(Mushroom cloud?) to defend the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I think that this can be summed up as "the smell of fear."

Let's run through each of the three's more dubious statements.

Rumsfeld:

9/11/2001 With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." -- meaning Saddam Hussein -- "at same time. Not only UBL" -- the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

This is not a guy I'd send out to affirm going to war in Iraq. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be comical.

Henry Kissinger is reputed to have called him: "Donald Rumsfeld is the most ruthless man I have ever met... and I mean that as a compliment."

I don't make this stuff up, folks. Who'd believe me? Wikipedia has more Rumsfeld.

Powell. Now, this is an easy one. I fail to see why Powell is held is such regard. He's a yes man. Without further ado, Colin from The U.S. State Dept. website. These are Powell's words during an exchange with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amre Moussa.

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

Well, Colin. Seems pretty clear that on February 24, 2001, you were sure that sanctions were working.

Sorry, but I see a huge credibility gap. I won't bother rehashing Powell's widely discredited presentation to the U.N. Security Council. A search on this site will give you all the detail you need.


Condoleezza Rice. Ms. mushroom cloud. This lifted directly from the Memory Hole:

On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer (an anonymous reader sent me the full transcript from Lexis-Nexis). Guest host John King asked Rice about the fact that Iraq had recently fired on US planes enforcing the "no-fly zones" in Iraq. Rice craftily responds:

Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.

Notice that she makes it clear that Bush is the one who considers Hussein a threat. She doesn't say, "I consider..." or even, "We consider..."

Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

These three are the people the White House trots out on the Sunday news programs to defend the Iraq war? The case is obviously very weak.

Richard Perle is already on record as saying "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable."

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

So, I think the case for the Iraq War is full of more holes than a round of Swiss cheese.

But then, I'm a semicon engineer, not an international lawyer.

What Color is the Sky in Their World?

Rationalization on display.