by davefromqueens [Subscribe] Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:09:52 PM EST
Yesterday, I drove to New Jersey, quietly stood on line which ushered me into the Community College Auditorium in Pemberton, picked a good spot on the third level of benches, pretended to clap and applaud when John McCain said stupid things which I didn't agree with, all with the hopes of being called on by one of the McCain staffers holding a microphone. I was oh so close. I was next on the other side of the auditorium when McCain abruptly ended the supposedly open town hall where he allegedly takes tough questions after 1 questioner, who only got called on because his nine year old kid was next to him, asked McCain about Bin Laden.
* davefromqueens's diary :: :: *
McCain's so called town halls are actually rallies hosted by the local Republican Party. The host, Chris Myers, identified himself as a local leader and claimed that New Jersey is going to go red because of the 2000 people in the gym. (About 1% of us were Obama supporters, someone held a sign up at the end, no one interrupted McCain's speech.) However if McCain can't fill a small gym in his only trip to New Jersey this month, his candidacy is in trouble.
The seating was staged. There were about 20 people with Veteran's hats and all were seated directly in line with McCain's podium in the front and back. Your cameras from home would make it appear that half the people there were veterans. In reality it was about 1%. Mixed into the Veterans was one angry woman who had a sign claiming she was a Hillary supporter voting McCain. This one sign was placed directly in the spot where the cameras were most likely to pick it up. She was planted there. It also appears that there was one singular woman who pulled the same stunt Thursday night at the so called Fox News McCain town hall meeting in New York. These people aren't real Clinton supporters, this too is staged.
The event began with the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation. In a multicultural country, an invocation is kind of creepy. The latter is not exactly inclusive but it appeared that all cameras were directed off during the invocation so that this non inclusive invocation could not be shown.
Then, all the local politicians getting stage time, including the Congressman in the area, and the Jersey candidates for the House and Senate. **** Zimmer, the former Congressman running against Frank Lautenberg, was received tepidly by what should have been a friendly crowd. People in Jersey know what a nasty louse **** Zimmer truly is.
Then Joe Lieberman took the stage claiming he was a Democrat supporting John McCain while taking pot shots at Obama in vague terms. Joe is no Democrat. Then it was Tom Kean, the whitewasher of the 9/11 committee, trying to give McCain credit for the commission which McCain and Republicans have sandbagged the American people with. Then John McCain took the stage.
McCain spoke for about thirty minutes. He praised people. It was hysterical when McCain praised Lieberman as helping him win New Hampshire. Lieberman started smirking, lifting his head smugly, while bearing a Cheshire cat grin as if Lieberman was somehow important and relevant. Smugness and Vanity would be understatements. Joe Lieberman and John McCain have been big reasons why Washington has failed the American people for the past 30 years so the more irrelevant they are, the better off the American people are.
McCain fumbled through his sound bites all while claiming that people are tired of sound bites. McCain used harsh and partisan rhetoric all while claiming that this needs to change. Large sections of McCain's audience booed when McCain was misrepresenting Obama's position but McCain of course calls for civil dialogue while never denouncing the uncivil nature of his supporters. Shockingly he claimed he did not know what climate change was in 2000 but has since read up on it. He foolishly claims that Iraq is the central focus on the War on Terror merely because David Petraeus says so. McCain said that the Obama camp is going to try and claim that he is for privatizing Social Security and that this is untrue. He then claimed he was against privatizing Social Security while in the very next sentence, proposing a policy that was, in effect, privatizing Social Security. Now there's video showing McCain supporting the privatization of Social Security in 2004 despite McCain saying that he's never supported it. McCain lies at the drop of a hat. It's obvious to most people. This was one of McCain's big gaffes today.
McCain also doesn't understand habeas corpus. He claimed the recent 5-4 decision on detainees was perhaps the worst in history because they are "enemy combatants." John McCain doesn't understand that many of the people in Guantanamo are at best "accused enemy combatants." He also seem confused between habeas corpus and tort remedies. But under this McCain Doctrine, any person in the world could be thrown in prison by John McCain merely because John McCain labels him a terrorist. There are some nefarious names throughout history that held the same view.
It was laughable when McCain tried to talk about education. He was ill informed and elitist. First it was the usual gobbly-gook about private schools and school choice, which of course isn't school choice at all. Then McCain had the audacity to equate him and Cindy sending their kids to super rich, super well funded private schools as if everybody would have access to this. It was bizarre.
McCain has his usual sound bites and the event was craftily staged. Approximately 200 people were hand selected ahead of time to be in a separate VIP area behind McCain and in front of McCain. This was a campaign rally not a town hall meeting and this needs to be emphasized.
Next came the questions and answers. McCain had said how much he loves to do town hall meetings because he likes to answer tough questions. But almost every questioner was picked out ahead of time or was about to be chosen because of a video image or the person appeared to be a rock solid Republican during McCain's speech. (That was me. I had on a suit and a lapel pin. Even Holy Joe couldn't recognize me.)
The questions and answers were not chosen among random people. 5 of the 7 questioners came from the VIP section including a woman in a wheelchair who was placed there ahead of time by a senior McCain staffer and then pointed to for a question even though she never raised her hand. They were plants. A couple of them were reading from index cards. A sixth questioner was also a plant in the bleachers about 40 feet to my right. He was a local Republican mayor whom the locals were familiar with.
The 7th questioner was only the 2nd person from outside the VIP section. There were 3 spotters walking around with microphones looking for apparent Republicans in the audience. The first spotter found the Republican mayor, the 2nd spotter found the 7th questioner, the third spotter was standing next to me as I was going to be questioner number eight. (I clapped at the right times, was dressed well, had the flag lapel pin on.)
The 7th questioner was chosen because McCain thought a 9 year old child was going to ask the question. But the father took the mike, told how his wife and child flew out of Newark on 9/11 and that could have been them. He then asked a very simple question, "Why haven't we gotten Bin Laden?
A bunch of Obama people and others cheered. (I refrained, I was to be the next question.) McCain got pissed, started rambling about the Diamondbacks and Yankees and Rudy Giuliani on a screen, said as President Bin Laden would be caught (Guess this means Bin Laden is still safe for another few months) and people were laughing that McCain wasn't answering the question.
You could see the veins in McCain starting to burst, he got very uncomfortable that his scripted rally just got derailed by this gentleman and then he ended the rally by thanking everyone and saying God Bless America.
Again, this was not a town hall meeting. If McCain wants tough questions he can come to Netroots Nation and be asked tough but fair questions for an hour.
I was disappointed I couldn't ask my two questions because I know I can inform people more about John MCCain in 10 minutes than the national media has in 10 years.
As for the questions I had, there were as follows:
1. Senator McCain, you say we won't leave Iraq until we "achieve victory." Define the criteria of "achieving victory."
2. Senator McCain, you voted with George W Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and your senior advisor Lindsay Graham says that you are an extension and enhancement of George W Bush. Is there anything that you today disagree with policy wise from George W Bush? If so, name 3 specifics.
If given the chance to ask these questions, McCain would have avoided them or stumbled. At the so called "Straight Talk Town Hall Meeting" there was little straight talk and certainly no town hall meeting. And in addition to the McCain gaffes for the day, the fact that Mccain's town halls are really staged rallies with plants in the audience is the real story if anybody in the national media would like to report on it.
YOu said , "Lets say its only once, to be nice. So now we're back up to 10 million Americans getting screwed."
Since when does one to one equate into 10 million Americans when you said only 5 million illegals? Not to mention you want to ignore the actual number of ID theft crimes known?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre
Originally posted by Aroha: Actually JC, this thread has been an eye-opener for me. Given that I'm a relatively clean slate when it comes to US politics and haven't aligned with one side or the other, while still trying to keep myself educated on the issues, I've been fairly open.
Despite that, I did suspect that I'd be more of a Democrat given the way I vote in New Zealand. However, the behaviour of certain people have absolutely coloured my view. If they're any indication of what a Democrat is, then count me out.
Aroha, I know we have disagreed on one specific topic in the past, but I think you will find this interesting. The OP-Ed provides a brief glimpse of the persona and perception that American politics has becom. Enjoy the reading:
"Fred Hiatt: 'Bush Lied' is a phony story line
Friday, June 13, 2008
"Fred Hiatt is The Washington Post's editorial page editor. His e-mail address is hiattf@washpost.com.
"WASHINGTON – Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" ***per sticker is only the beginning.
"Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W. Va., chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word. "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.
"There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President **** Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
"But dive into Mr. Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
"On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
"On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
"On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
"On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
"As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Mr. Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
"But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."
"The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
"In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Mr. Bush's statements about Mr. Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
"After all, it was not Mr. Bush, but Mr. Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. ... To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
"Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales. But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Mr. Bush and Mr. Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.
"And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Mr. Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.
"For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.
Fred Hiatt is The Washington Post's editorial page editor. His e-mail address is hiattf@washpost.com." Link
I highlighted in bold two points which I found congruent to the point of media perception and politics.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Hudson,
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre
That was a very interesting read, Hudson. The whole "he lied" thing bothers me as well. We all know what the intel was, and we all know where it came from. We also know it was legitimate at some point in time but was outdated. Perhaps Bush's advisors and analysts should have dug a little deeper, but saying it's an outright lie is an exaggeration. Now, don't get me wrong. I didn't agree with the Iraq war, then or now, and I've never been a fan of the US political machine either.
As far as reporting goes, as I've mentioned earlier, I try to take editorials etc with a grain of salt as there's no onus on the author to be factual and provide anything other than opinion. Same goes for weblog articles. I'm well aware that even reputable media agencies can have a political bent and can slant their broadcasts one way or another. People should use their own brains and do their own research.
Just for interests sake, there's an example here in NZ of how much the media can affect perception. The housing market went through a huge boom about a year ago. House prices in some cases more than doubled overnight. The media began reporting on an expected slump, which did follow. Research has shown that the media reporting led to a great deal of that downturn. People got scared and stopped buying, even though the economy hadn't really changed.
************************************** The whole of life is but a moment of time. It is our duty, therefore to use it, not to misuse it - Plutarch
Posts: 1222 | Location: Las Vegas | Registered: 07-29-2007
Originally posted by Aroha: That was a very interesting read, Hudson. The whole "he lied" thing bothers me as well. We all know what the intel was, and we all know where it came from. We also know it was legitimate at some point in time but was outdated. Perhaps Bush's advisors and analysts should have dug a little deeper, but saying it's an outright lie is an exaggeration. Now, don't get me wrong. I didn't agree with the Iraq war, then or now, and I've never been a fan of the US political machine either.
As far as reporting goes, as I've mentioned earlier, I try to take editorials etc with a grain of salt as there's no onus on the author to be factual and provide anything other than opinion. Same goes for weblog articles. I'm well aware that even reputable media agencies can have a political bent and can slant their broadcasts one way or another. People should use their own brains and do their own research.
Just for interests sake, there's an example here in NZ of how much the media can affect perception. The housing market went through a huge boom about a year ago. House prices in some cases more than doubled overnight. The media began reporting on an expected slump, which did follow. Research has shown that the media reporting led to a great deal of that downturn. People got scared and stopped buying, even though the economy hadn't really changed.
Did Aroha Write This???? Or Me??? Ohhhh My Bad I Was Just Thinking It!
So I am just curious. If you believe something, does it make it true? And if you have a question you'd like answered, to like make sure that what you believe is true or not, wouldn't you like want to get to the bottom of it, and really research it? Cuz you know, Hudson and Aroha, it's been proven that the president ignored intelligence reports as to WMD in Iraq, and they were presented to the President but he ignored them.
Here is some aid to help you in your research in understanding the reality as it is.
Because if you don't do that, what kind of an American or a patriot are you?
Now, is reality when you face the facts, or is reality when you believe in what you want to believe?
The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I have been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So, have we had some disagreements on some issues - particularly domestic issues? Yes, but I will argue my conservative record of voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I am particularly talking about the war on terror, war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues; I strongly disagree with any assertion that I have been more at odds with the President of the United States than I have been in agreement.
Now, maybe you thought that the war in Iraq is a good thing. Saddam Hussein is gone from this world, but wasn't it like five or more years ago?? Why are we there still?? Have you wondered?
If you think you support the war criminals: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, and this war, this is what under their orders has been done in YOUR name: results of depleted uranim and 1500 tons of it
This is a disturbing diary, so I am warning you up front.
A report out of Iraq this past week by Dahr Jamail highlights another stunningly horrific result of the illegal use of white phosphorus and chemical weapons in Fallujah by "coalition forces" back in late 2004 and 2005.
Babies born in Fallujah are showing illnesses and deformities on a scale never seen before, doctors and residents say.
The new cases, and the number of deaths among children, have risen after "special weaponry" was used in the two massive bombing campaigns in Fallujah in 2004.
After denying it at first, the Pentagon admitted in November 2005 that white phosphorous, a restricted incendiary weapon, was used a year earlier in Fallujah.
In addition, depleted uranium (DU) munitions, which contain low-level radioactive waste, were used heavily in Fallujah. The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tons of DU in Iraq thus far.
Between the white phosphorus and depleted uranium (as reported back in early 2006, as many as 50% of Iraqi cancer patients were under the age of 5 years old. This number from 2006 is up from around 13% just over a decade years earlier.
Brain damage, cleft palate, deformities, cancer, early death, Down’s Syndrome, stillborn babies, miscarriages, heart defects and missing limbs are just some of the "abnormalities" that are being seen at an alarming rate over the past few years, not to mention bodies where the skin basically melted off after exposure to these dangerous and immoral chemical weapons use.
"We saw all the colors of the rainbow coming out of the exploding American shells and missiles," Ali Sarhan, a 50-year-old teacher who lived through the two US sieges of 2004 told IPS. "I saw bodies that turned into bones and coal right after they were exposed to bombs that we learned later to be phosphorus.
Were these mothers terrorists? What about the babies or children that were exposed to the chemicals and have either died or now have to suffer a life full of health issues - a life that will no doubt be shortened and full of difficulty as a result?
And by the way, this is not limited to Iraqis. As noted last year, Iraq vets have an alarming increase in cancer rates as well:
The number of these cancers remains undisclosed, with military officials citing patient privacy issues, as well as lack of evidence the cases are linked to conditions in the war zone. The U.S. Congress has ordered a probe of suspect toxins and may soon begin widespread testing of our armed forces.
---snip---
None of these soldiers know for sure what's killing them. But they suspect it's a cascade of multiple toxic exposures, coupled with the intense stress of daily life in a war zone weakening their immune systems.
"There's so much pollution from so many sources, your body can't fight what's coming at it," Valentin said. "And you don't eat well or sleep well, ever. That weakens you, too. There's no chance to gather your strength. These are kids 19, 20 and 21 getting all kinds of cancers. The Walter Reed cancer ward is packed full with them."
The prime suspect in all this, in the minds of many victims — and some scientists — is what's known as depleted uranium — the radioactive chemical prized by the military for its ability to penetrate armored vehicles. When munitions explode, the substance hits the air as fine dust, easily inhaled.
This is yet another huge issue that will need to be dealt with, and like so many others, is a humanitarian matter that will cast a dark cloud on what has been done in our names. Deformities and high cancer rates can’t be ignored - whether it is for Iraqi civilians or for our troops who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The pictures are absolutely heartwrenching (warning: these are very graphic).
The effects are just starting to be seen, and whether it is in Walter Reed for our returning troops, or in the hospitals in Iraq - it is overwhelming:
The doctor added, "I can say all kinds of problems related to toxic pollution took place in Fallujah after the November 2004 massacre."
Many doctors speak of similar cases and a similar pattern. The indications remain anecdotal, in the absence of either a study, or any available official records.
The Fallujah General Hospital administration was unwilling to give any statistics on deformed babies, but one doctor volunteered to speak on condition of anonymity -- for fear of reprisals if seen to be critical of the administration.
---snip---
A senior Iraqi health ministry official was quoted as saying Feb. 26 that the health sector is under "great pressure", with scores of doctors killed, an exodus of medical personnel, poor medical infrastructure, and shortage of medicines.
The atrocities committed in the name of "freedom" and "liberation" are countless. The fact that this was covered up, then downplayed by this administration is nothing short of disgusting. The ignoring and black out by the corporate media is inexcusable. But the truth is not hard to find - if you can stomach reading through it.
What’s worse is that all of this was done in our names, and most people don’t even know it (or want to know it).
March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party
May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party
June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party
July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies
February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet
February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies
March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies
You voted democrat. This country is not worth sneaking into any more.
Posts: 5791 | Location: San Antonio TX | Registered: 06-08-2007
Clear Evidence of War Crimes: Stern Letters to Come? by Meteor Blades Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:01:14 PM EST
After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.
Maj. General Antonio Taguba (Ret.), who led the Army’s 2004 investigation into the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. (From the foreword of Broken Laws, Broken Lives).
It is impossible to escape a mixture of sadness and fury while reading the 149 horrific pages of the just-released report published by Physicians for Human Rights and called Broken Laws, Broken Lives: Medical Evidence of Torture by the US. Sadness for the victims. Fury for the fact that American citizens have paid for the ghastly criminal acts of guards and interrogators at U.S.-run prisons in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and Afghanistan. Sadness that Americans are now seen as torturers worldwide. Fury that high officials who ordered these acts are not digging holes and filling them up every day on some penal atoll.
The torture those officials authorized has been revealed over the years in bits and pieces. We’ve seen the photographs. Newspaper stories, magazine articles and a dozen books have been written. There have been previous scathing reports, including two by PHR. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights have delved into the matter. There was, of course, the Army’s 2004 investigation into what happened at Abu Ghraib. And, better late than never, Senator Carl Levin began presiding Tuesday over three days of hearings on the subject, Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody.
For the first time, however, Broken Laws, Broken Lives has added grim evidence gleaned from medical tests, both physical and psychological, of 11 former detainees. Unique stories, but with a theme that cannot - and must not - be ignored. The evidence was gathered and evaluated under strict internationally recognized standards and procedures for determining whether someone has been tortured or ill-treated and for documenting the consequences in a manner so that the results can be used in court. These standards are part of the Istanbul Protocol, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the United Nations in 1999.
We'll take a look at one of those 11 cases in a minute.
PHR is a 20-year-old human rights organization that shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 with five other non-governmental organizations making up the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. According to PHR, Broken Laws, Broken Lives ...<
Add to del.icio.us
