From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: U.S. | Anti-War
Crawford rallies against war, protesters demand "out now!" at Bush ranch check point
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at]
Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
Crawford, Texas (November 26, 2005) - Cindy Sheehan and peace activists from across the country wrapped up Thanksgiving outside the Bush vacation ranch today. Festivities included a press conference, book signing, big tent rally, secret service checkpoint protest, mass balloon release, and a evening candle light vigil.
Crawford, Texas (November 26, 2005) - Cindy Sheehan and peace activists from across the country wrapped up Thanksgiving outside the Bush vacation ranch today. Festivities included a press conference, book signing, big tent rally, secret service checkpoint protest, mass balloon release, and a evening candle light vigil.

An early morning thunderstorm drenched Camp Casey, but residents shook off and dried out in time to host a press conference with Gold Star Families for Peace co-founder Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan announced her newly released book Not One More Mother’s Child. A book signing benefiting the Crawford Peace House followed the press conference.

The march to the Bush secret service checkpoint was cancelled due to poor weather but dozens of folks took up positions at the checkpoint anyway. Gold Star Families for Peace members, including Cindy Sheehan and her sister DeDe Miller, chanted "What noble cause?" as Secret Service SUVs passed.

Due to the presence of the protesters, the president’s convoy detoured past Camp Casey and the peace rally. After Daniel Ellsberg’s presentation, the activists jumped up and out of the tent to meet the Bush limo. Most folks only caught a glimpse of the limo as it sped by significantly faster than the posted speed limit.

Nina Nahvi, sister of Spc. Russell H. Nahvi killed in Balad, Iraq on October 19, 2005, spoke of her loss for the first time. She said her brother Russell was clearly against the war, and she noted he would never have a chance to join Veterans for Peace. Russell was 25, and Nina is a few years younger. Seven other Gold Star Families for Peace members spoke at the rally, including Amy Branham and Bill Mitchell.

Ann Wright is one of three diplomats who resigned their posts in protest of the war in Iraq. She spoke of how Daniel Ellsberg inspired her to not just resign, but speak against the war. Hadi Jawad spoke of the role of the Crawford Peace House as the hub of the movement to hold war criminals in Washington DC accountable. Not in Our Name activist, and Gulf War resister Jeff Paterson spoke in support of recent objector Army National Guard Spc. Katherine Jashinski and her courage to resist an unjust war that spawns torture and war crimes. Vietnam, Gulf and Iraq War veterans joined Gold Star Families for Peace members demanding an immediate end to the US occupation of Iraq.

Following the rally, balloons were released towards the Bush ranch. Each balloon bore a small photo of a US serviceperson killed in Iraq with the message "bring them home."
§Beatriz Saldivar, aunt of Sgt. Daniel Torres who was killed in Iraq
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
§Dozens gather at Bush ranch check point
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
§Amy Branham (left) and DeDe Miller, Gold Star Families for Peace
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
§"Not in Our Name"
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
§Cindy Sheehan at Bush ranch check point
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
§Gold Star Families for Peace take stage at Camp Casey rally
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
§Gold Star Families for Peace take stage at Camp Casey rally
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
§Cindy Sheehan with photo of her son's coffin
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
§Candle light vigil
by Jeff Paterson, Not in Our Name (jeff [at] Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 8:00 PM
§Thanksgiving at Camp Casey
by PWW (repost) Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 5:48 PM
Outside Bush ranch, fight is for son’s buddies

CRAWFORD, Texas — The rainy weather forecasts didn’t deter the hundreds of antiwar protestors from showing up here Thanksgiving weekend. Gold Star Families for Peace co-founder Cindy Sheehan joined her sister, Dede Miller, veterans, military families and others at Camp Casey II for a Nov. 26 rally, just outside of President George W. Bush’s ranch, to demand an immediate end to the U.S. occupation and war in Iraq.

Events earlier in the week included civil disobedience and a Thanksgiving meal of Iraqi food as an expression of solidarity with the Iraqi people.

Camp Casey was named after Sheehan’s son Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004. It was the scene of a peace upsurge in August after Sheehan demanded to meet with the president. Some 12,000 people joined Sheehan during her 26-day vigil, galvanizing the peace sentiments across the country and around the world to ask “For what noble cause?”

Sheehan said Casey went to Iraq because of “his loyalty to his buddies.” That’s the reason I still protest, she said, “to fight for Casey’s buddies.”

The Thanksgiving holiday events, while smaller than the August vigil, kept the struggle to end the Iraq war in the public eye.

Hadi Jawad, co-founder of Crawford Peace House, frequently finds himself acting as an unofficial tour guide as rally-goers are shuttled from the Peace House to Camp Casey.

“Coming up on the left is where he [Bush] goes to church — for photo ops!” said Hadi, pointing to a white church in the middle of a field.

Hadi, who has been at the Peace House since it opened in 2003, said, “The United States wants one thing, and that is to control Iraq’s resources. Those resources include the people.” He bristles at any notion that U.S. forces are needed to keep order. “Iraq can take care of its own.”

Inside the large canvass tent, the walls were draped with hand-sewn panels dedicated to Iraqi citizens and U.S. personnel who have died in Iraq. More than 2,070 soldiers have perished and an estimated 30,000-100,000 Iraqis have died since the U.S. invasion.

Exuding a sense of peace and grace, Sheehan beamed warmly toward all who approached her. Throughout the event her eyes frequently filled with tears. Sheehan is a woman still grieving. She listened to many personal stories and offered hugs and comfort.


Comments  (Hide Comments)

by William Moore
Sunday Nov 27th, 2005 5:02 PM
I have read many of your articles about Crawford, Texas and all I see is Sheehan, Sheehan, Sheehan. There are two sides to every arguement but I have yet to see the side of those that believe we should remain in Iraq until the job is done. Is there a fear of the truth, are you affraid of the United States being permitted to win a war for once. Must you spit on every serviceman that has ever died for our country because someone you dislike is the President? If those complainers are truely wanting to show both sides then lets get it on! I challenge a debate to Cindy Sheehan to meet with Gary Qualls in a televised debate over the war, our troops, and if they should come home now or when the job is done. Unless you are as many have called you, "cowards", because they say all you want to do is turn tail and run, then get the debate set up and "let's get 'er done"!! The press knows how to contact me or Gary Qualls about a debate, all you have to do is pressure them to get on the ball and make it happen, if you can. If you can prove your point, I may even join your side. I dare you to put up or shut up!!!
by TW
Sunday Nov 27th, 2005 6:10 PM
"...I have yet to see the side of those that believe we should remain in Iraq until the job is done."

But you hear that side every day, Mr. Moore, every time you listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the other Goebbelsian shills whose line you obviously prefer. Or even just walking down the main street of the average US small town. Indymedia is where people seek an antidote to all that mind-poison. If you don't like the left anti-imperialist perspective, why on earth did you even come here? You didn't know that was Indymedia's milieu? Well now you do, so you don't ever need to come back again. Nice meeting you, happy trails
by E. Upton
(eloptn2 [at] Monday Nov 28th, 2005 6:11 AM
There is a vortex of energy for peace above Camp Casey. I think it started in August as the people started coming to support Cindy Sheehan's effort to ask Bush to meet with her. The fact that he would not, created this "draw". It is still there. He has to live under that vortex for peace.
by but
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 7:06 AM
#s 3, 12, and 15 need work. Blowing the whites isn't good.

And indoors, you have a flash color mismatch. You seem to have a Nikon personality - you can get a gold colored insert for some of their flashes that would address that.

Otherwise, good photos.

I saw the a photo on the web that showed her book signing table. Kind of sad that not many people were there.
by BARTCOP--what a dumbass--LOL!
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 7:07 AM
Typical mindless right wing coward.
You're dismissed, sheep.
by William Moore
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 2:48 PM
Yes, I know that you are not an Imperialist or a Capitalist but rather support the Socialist or Communist way of thought but fail to relize that while Russia used those principals your kind would have been shot. So how would you fair under a Dictator, the same. I didn't come to California to start trouble but your Cindy Sheehan came to Texas for that purpose. All I asked was for a debate, you do know what that is or do you have to demand that your position is how it is going to be? I requested Gary Qualls of Temple, Texas to debate with Cindy Sheehan on National T.V., that is a very fair proposal I think. Gary lost his son in Iraq also and the pain of losing his son is no less than Cindy's. I have been in Crawford, and so has Gary, every time Cindy has and made myself available to the media, why do you hide your face as the terrorist do? I have not attempted to insult you, that would be too easy and would not accomplish anything. I have only attempted to bait you with a proposal that you are appearantly afraid to accept. We have asked Cindy for the debate while she was in Crawford, she first accepted it and then she decided not to. Flip flop is something we are used to from the leftist. But still, it is a challenge not answered. Again, are you brave enough to get away from your keyboard and have Cindy accept the challenge. Or are you going to continue trying to insult my Texas draw and continue thinking that we, Texans and President George W. Bush, are too stupid for really smart people like you. So how many people from California have become President? One, and he was a great man and a Republican. Leftist, NONE!!! Please, don't wimp out now, accept the challenge!!!
by to "William Moore"
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 5:02 PM
How can you blindly defend failure? Your beloved commander and chief is a complete failure, a laughingstock. How can you possibly defend him?
by William Moore
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 6:04 PM
There you go again, I ask for a debate and you change the subject. Ok I will accept your default when considering a debate. Those of us in Texas usually figure a man can speak for himself and I believe that President George W. Bush has done well enough for himself. So, let's discuss the so called "Anti-War" movement that it seems you are so proud of. When the Democrats asked for a vote for immediate withdrawl from Iraq, the Republicans agreed but demanded a role call vote, whereas each individual has to place his name on the vote itself. The result: 403 against the pullout and 3 for it. Wow, three is one heck of a movement, isn't it. Playing politics is one thing but pulling the troops out would be insane, yeah, the Dem's did some "crawfishing" because they aren't idiots (they just play like one on t.v.). We have a saying down here in Texas, it goes like this: "If a person repeats a lie enough that he actually believes it, then he must be a Democrat". Have you heard the new approach the Dem's plan to use? Bush caused us to lose the Iraq war! What a joke, but, keep saying it enough...
by no heroes save ourselves
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 6:24 PM
>How can you possibly defend him?

Well, they say that hero worship is in fact worship of yourself...
by no heroes save ourselves
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 6:29 PM
>He's a laughing stock. How can you possibly defend him?

Well, they say that hero worship is in fact worship of yourself...
by klaatu
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 7:56 PM
Mr Williams, I was merely posting photos and first hand accounts.

Has it occured to you that many here and elsewhere know full and well that the Democrats are not our friends? Hell, you have Hillary Clinton saying "To every nation in the world, you’re either with us or you’re not, and there will be consequences"
-- Hilary Clinton, Oct 8, 2001.

Sound familiar? By all means feel free to bash the Democrats. I'm with you there... and only recently she was in Israel courting the Jewish vote and admiring their beautiful wall. Odd that Jews are only about 2% of the population. So much for "democratic" representation. How about the misnamed "Patriot Act" the one Congress forgot to read, the one where over 200 cities acted against it and when the government went out to sell it locally in every venue that I know of it positively flopped.

You think how congressional votes somehow reflect the true size of the anti-war movement? You think Congress listens to the people? Have you heard of the gerrymandering in Texas? Yes, I know Democrats are guilty as well. How about Diebold. Do you also know that the many of German ancestors that the Crawford folks like to point to when they speak of family values came to America to escape conscription? That's right. Draft Dodgers. All Hail!

True the demonstrations during Thanksgiving in Crawford were not massive, but what? the anti war folks surely outnumbered the pro- war folks. I saw maybe 10 pro war folks and probably 200 antiwar. You want to play numbers? Lookee here.

You don't have to be right or left to be anti war.

You might find this site interesting. I'll post it to help break the ridiculous Left/right mind game that is being played on all of us.

The fact is that I probably have the same core values as you do. We are likely operating on different sources of information. That is where the debate should probably lie. So, did you believe anything in Powell's infamous "Slam dunk" UN speech? Did you know that he lied to get Gulf War I started? Do you remember the baby incubator story? How about the satellite photos showing massed Iraqi armor set to invade Saudi Arabia. I fell for that one until a repeorter got hold of some satellite photos. Guess what? No tanks, not even tank tread marks in that pristine desert sand. Powell when confronted said "Fine". Fine? You have been lied to. WMD? Is that OK? Do you know that Powell uses Ambien to get to sleep and says everyone around here [presumably the State Dept. and Pentagon] uses it? This is the very tip of the iceburg and only gives the scantiest indication of who is putting your kids into Iraq. The obvious next question is why. Why are we in Iraq?

A few more points. You say that the Sheehan movement is one of personality. Sure, there is some of that, you'll find that among Bush worshipers too, and in very large measure, but when Sheehan had to leave this summer when her mother suffered a stroke the population of Camp Casey only increased. Wouldn't a personality cult collapse once the figurehead is gone?

There are some reasons why this is not a good place to debate, I mean the format. I can't see what I'm responding to when I click "reply", I'm not notified of a reply when it comes in and the whole thing is totally linear.

Well, I do know of a forum where such things can be discussed although it would be "enemy territory". Generally the posters are pretty considerate.

by Crinoline
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 9:11 PM
Meanwhile, less than a block away at the intersection that marks the center of Crawford, a small vigil was held "to counter Sheehan's effect". A Vietnam veteran strummed a guitar and told passers-bys that we to "stay in Vietnam until the job is done".
by William Moore
Tuesday Nov 29th, 2005 7:50 AM
Mr./Ms. Klaatu, Although I doubt this is your real name. My name is William Moore and I am the ol' goat that has to ride the blue electric scooter while I am supporting our troops and our president in Crawford, not just when Sheehan is there, but alot of the time to visit my many friends that live there. I am not hard to contact, if you have read the newspaper this past weekend or watch any network on t.v. that ran the AP story about Crawford's so called "dueling rallys" you would have seen my ugly mug. Heck, I was recently told that some people had a play near San Fransisco about Crawford and they had an actor play my part. Weird! Oh well, any search on the internet should find the ONLY William Moore that lives in McGregor, Texas. I would enjoy speaking to you because you at least attempt to reason why we are really in Iraq, and yes, I also agree that we could be friends. I have several friends that do not agree with me politically, to me that's not a problem, they are my friends and we can discuss our differances without becoming angry or defensive about our beliefs. I ,as most Americans, believe in God, family, and country; in that order. You have at least made a few interesting points although most have been debunked or were just political "got ya" from one side or the other but again most of those have been debunked also. That is why politicians are not still foaming at the mouth about it. You see, myself, Jim Robinson of, and Jay Dyson of are all disabled from one thing or another. We do get involved with politics in our own way. Jim Roberson and I have been to Crawford but Jay Dyson is to ill to travel any distance. We do watch our government, good and bad, and we respond to the events that occurs as we feel is needed. With so much misinformation out there from both sides, I know that I would not be able to convince you to see our views unless we were to take each scrap of information you believe is true and prove to you one way or the other. I think you would agree that would be a waste of time. You see, I don't care if you are democrat or republican, pro-war or anti-war, for Bush or against Bush, we live in America and that is your choice and I believe, because I am an American, that we can and should voice our views. I do believe in our president and the work he has done and I do believe that our troops should be in Iraq until the job is finished but believe it or not the reason many of us are in Crawford and against Sheehan really hasn't got much to do with either of those beliefs. We are upset because she has used the names of our fallen heros to promote her cause which is against the will of the families of those dead soldiers. My good friend, Gary Qualls, actually went to Cindy Sheehan, gave her a hug and asked her not to use his son's name in what she was doing. She not only refused this greiving man but became very ugly about it. When he came back from that meeting he met with me and Bill Johnson, the owner of the Yellow Rose Gift Shop. He told us his story about his son and his request that Cindy Sheehan stop using his son's name and I must admit we cried with him. The next day Fort Qualls was started in Crawford. Her own son volunteered for the military and volunteered for Iraq duty, he died doing what he believed in, he is indead an American Hero. Cindy has attempted to discredit her own son's duty by using it for her own political purposes which I believe is shameless. It is one thing to discredit your own son's service to his nation and another to attempt to discredit the sons of all the other fallen heros. If she would have left them alone no one would have cared if she stayed in that ditch for as long as she wanted. She said she wanted to have a second meeting with the president but how about Gary Qualls, he hasn't had a meeting with him yet. Where is the outcry for for his justice?? We can discuss politics all you want, but stop her from "grave robbing" please. Now that we have come to the root of the national problem, who are you with? Are you the type of person that would use the war dead for your political interest causing their families unmesurable pain or would you rather debate the political issues on their own marit? Your turn, do you really want to stand by Cindy Sheehan or are you man enough to know your own mind and debate honestly? God Bless
by Klaatu
Tuesday Nov 29th, 2005 8:10 AM
"In shock, she threw the phone across the living room and ran toward the beach, ripping a "Support Our Troops" bracelet from her wrist. She buried it in the sand.

"His father, once a war booster and Bush supporter, turned against both."

.... one month after their 35-year-old son's death, John's parents ended up where they least expected: at a Germantown interfaith service organized by antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan and her Bring Them Home Now Tour."

Col. Ted Westhusing, a military ethicist who volunteered to go to Iraq, was upset by what he saw. His apparent suicide raises questions.,0,6096413,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
by Klaatu
Tuesday Nov 29th, 2005 8:59 AM
Damn, I hate crossposting.
Sorry I got your name wrong.
We do have different beliefs probably as a result of our differing takes on what is going down. It doesn't mean that we, you and I, are bad people. So let's take that as a given and proceed with examining the evidence, honest folks are allowed to change positions as the evidence changes.

You will have to point out to me which lines of my evidence are debunked. I know it is a painstaking process and the real problem is that we can't focus on all the info. One item may be debunked but it matters that other bits and pieces all stick together. I mean, this is how we form a belief system, by connecting the dots, unless one just takes it straight of the TV. I know that this may result in a 'got ya' sort of exchange but I'll try to keep my ego out of it. I've been fooled before, for instance I thought that the US stood for free press, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I don't think this process is a waste of time, in fact I don't know of another way to do it.

So I propose that we start with the evidence and the questions, direct questions, that I asked in the previous post. I won't continue until those are addressed. We can go on with the personality/anti-personality cult of Sheehan, there is a whole site devoted to it. Doesn't this miss the larger issues?

I hate to contradict myself so early on but I will go on a iittle longer.

Regarding the use of the dead: You know, the first thing that happens when someone dies is that they can no longer speak for themselves, hence other people will give their understandings about it. This is an unavoidable thing. Some would call this "History". True enough sometimes the agenda is evil, but mostly not. You have of course noticed that both sides use the dead. Don't be hypocrital about that. One to further the war, one to further the anti-war view. So what. C'mon, both sides use our dead soldiers and dead civilians as well. I mean who climbed up on the dead and used a bullhorn to call for a global war! Please man.

Am I the type to use the war dead? I have brought my fathers flag to Camp Casey. Why? Well he served long and with loyalty and was against this war. His oath included the oath to defend the Constitution. Our politicians take that oath too. I see traitors. Has Qualls called for a meeting with W? What response has he gotten?

You say; "now that we've come to the root of the national problem.." I must have missed that. Where?

I don't think anyone wants to diss someone for dying for their beliefs. That is indeed heroic. Can we all agree on that? Like they say, one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Oddly enough, for our government, Osama has been both.

The task at hand is to examine the beliefs.

Unfortunately I have to take a few days off.
by to william moore
Tuesday Nov 29th, 2005 9:08 AM
This is your hilarious quote"If a person repeats a lie enough that he actually believes it, ...."I'm not a Democrat--many of them are almost as bad as the failed republican party these days -by and for the corporations---

here's some lies for you though:

also--here's your flip-flopper-in chief in all his glory:
It's interesting to see the lies/flip-flops over time.
Bush is a comp[lete joke--even real conservatives know this. He is a fiscal, environmental and foreign policy failure.
by William Moore
Tuesday Nov 29th, 2005 9:45 AM
Yes, my supposed friend, war is hell and if possiable war should be avoided. There has, no doubt, been corruption, lack of supplies, and death in any war that has ever been conducted upon this earth. Again, we can argue each individual point that you would believe it but that would solve nothing because you will believe what you will. Have you not read the many horrors of WWII or any of the stories of the military men and women who have fought for our country? The war on terror is not a silly game, it is in order to keep us all safe. There are few places in this world that terrorist do not do their harm, do you not want to stop them before they kill you or your family even here in the United States. Come back to earth, my friend, it is a kill or be killed world out there and believe it or not we belong to this world too. I am saddened for everyone of our troops that die, yes, I count them too but I also relize that this is the price of freedom. Freedom isn't something that comes cheap. Now my previous question to you was: Are you going to back Sheehan in her attempts to use our dead military (fallen heros) for her political purposes which I termed as "grave robbing" or not. I do not care if you feel the war is right or wrong or if you support Bush or not. My debate has nothing to do with politics at all, just give the respect to the families that lost their son or daughter in this or any other war. Must you continue to complain about this or that, please stick to the point of debate. God Bless (I don't mean to offend by stating this but I do believe you do have some form of higher authority than yourself, am I correct?)
by william moore avoids facts
Tuesday Nov 29th, 2005 9:48 AM
Did you read those links? Your failure of a president and administration is there.
If you are so brainwashed as to believe Iraq was about our "freedom" than you really need to look into the facts---I would be glad to help you if you would like information about what this war is really about.
by keep tellin yourself that
Tuesday Nov 29th, 2005 9:50 AM
nevermind that the chaos the Bush admin has created in Iraq (a country that was fully contained militarily previous to to invasion) will indeed lead to blowback

are you aware that weekly insurgent attacks there are now up to 700 from 150 or so a year ago?

that's a lot of people learning how to make bombs and fight in urban warfare

we're not any safer because of this war in Iraq
by no heroes save ourselves
Tuesday Nov 29th, 2005 10:00 AM


My apologies for my previous post, I was in a bit of snit over some of the right-wingers (and some of the left-wingers as well) on this site.

You seem to honest believe that we're under attack, and need to be ever vigilant. How would you feel if you found out that both sides in this so-called war were perpetuating a hoax?

For further information, watch the Power of Nightmares, it's a BBC documentary. Here are the links:

Part one:

Part two: (sorry for the quality, this was the only copy I could find, the copy on google is in error):

Part three:
by Klaatu
Tuesday Nov 29th, 2005 11:38 AM

Unanswered questions. I asked for answers to my questions.
.... did you believe anything in Powell's infamous "Slam dunk" UN speech?

I think I can deduce the answer from your waving of the terrorist under every bed style fear mongering. You've been duped buddy. That's right, War is Hell. copy that.

... Did you know that he [Powell] lied to get Gulf War I started?

... Do you know that Powell uses Ambien to get to sleep and says everyone around here [presumably the State Dept. and Pentagon] uses it?

... Why are we in Iraq?

... Has Qualls called for a meeting with W? What response has he gotten?

You say: "I do not care if you feel the war is right or wrong or if you support Bush or not"

Ok, I happen to care a great deal about if the war is right or wrong... if any war is right or wrong. Do lies matter to you? Apparently not since you have dodged my direct questions. Have you studied the history of lying to start wars? WWI, Pearl Harbor, Tonkin... You say they are debunked but you don't tell me how this is. Please visit some of those links. Power of Nightmares is very compelling William, though I don't agree with it all.

Is your only point whether Cindy's movement should mourn the dead children of our 'family'... our nation? Is that really all of it, your whole point for being here? Do I back Cindy and the 'use' of the crosses? Yes I do, surely better than running them over with a pick up truck. Should we also ban mention of the numbers of dead? Should we ban photos of our dead arriving at Dover? You know about that right? How do you feel about that? If a family requests that the cross for their family member not be used I would most certainly respect that. It can be replaced with a number. Sorry, but these are our nations dead... it's a national issue too and just as you'll find disagreement in a family so too the nation. You 'come back to earth'. After all I hear it over and over that they are dying for OUR freedom. Hello? Please, you stop using them for my 'freedom'!

You think Cindy is about politics, I disagree. It's not about right or left it's about what's right. What is right? You've now proven that this is an area of evidence that you simply will not get into.

I have told you why I brought my fathers flag to the crosses at Camp Casey, I have pointed out that W uses the dead. No response to that obvious hypocrisy. Have I answered your question?

Meanwhile I request, and many families of the dead from 9-11 say "not in our name"! Yet I hear over and over again the attempt to make 9-11 our own little Holocaust cult with weepy eagle graphics and "remember 9-11" war cries. Is that ok by you? That happens to be another direct question, add it to the list.

Debate over, I've answered your one main question.

Do I believe in a higher authority. You mean like the government? Ha! No, I do not. I do however believe in a higher truth, higher love and higher honesty, just what that is and how it relates to me is a mystery and subject of continuous study, so yes you are correct if that's what you mean.

Take care William, and sorry about the tone.
by William Moore
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 8:00 AM
Sorry I was not able to respond sooner, I have been very ill and although I don't feel too great I will attempt to respond to a few postings. I am a Pro-War Supporter, I am a Pro-Troops Supporter, I am a Bush Supporter, I am a Conservitive Republican, and I believe in God. Cruel words will not change my beliefs nor yours and I have allowed our differances to be set aside while we debated Cindy Sheehan's use of our fallen soldiers in Iraq and I am happy to finally get your responce to it. All that Gary Qualls and I have asked from the start was that she gain permission from the families of those dead soldiers prior to using them in her mission, we do not care if she uses blank crosses to show the growing numbers or even if she were to number them, is this so wrong? When I said that it didn't matter what side you are on I was refering to the moral issue of respecting your nabors dead and using their name in vain. We do have those other differances though and it seems that the readers of this blog want me to defend my beliefs. I am not brainwashed nor am I any of the vulgar names that the readers wish to use to label me. I am a rare breed of person that is willing to discuss the views of today with people that believe opposite than I do. I came here to discuss not to call one another names. Do you really care what I think of Powell or if I have read some article that you have that supports your view? I am an American like you that wants only the best for our nation and yet I am the enemy not the terrorist, why is this? You know I could speak about the names I have been called while in Crawford or the hand jestures that have been aimed my way by those that support Cindy but I haven't because it doesn't help in a constructive debate. I will tell you of a man the cooks for Cindy Sheehan, his name is Keith McHenry. One day he and I were having a discussion, no raised voices or hateful words. My wife simply asked him why he would feel this way, then suddenly he erupted with the words "Because I hate America!" and he left quickly with my wife chewing his backside on the way. I have heard that people like him were around but I did not think anyone would be so blunt about it, why do these people still live here if they hate us so much? Where is the "peace" of the Peace Movement? All I have heard is hate. Maybe it should be the "Hate Movement" just to keep things honest if that is all that one can preach. Well, I will get off here and let everyone tell me how stupid I am, etc, and then rethink what I have said. GOD BLESS & MERRY CHRISTMAS
by God Bless William Moore
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 9:09 AM
Mr. Moore, what do you think of this?
by Concerned About Us
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 10:14 AM
This war is REAL!
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11,2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslems.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either with along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world- German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorist. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing- by their own pronouncements-killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
We can definitly lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question- What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as on can get. What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced and increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that theywould see, we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorist bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorist without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.
If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know wht is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the cost of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Minta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give upsome of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certanly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and /or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicans or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorist have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember the Muslim terrorist stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims-not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!
We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone-let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to theose who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims?"
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
After reading the above, we all muct do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.
Wheather Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!
There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
by List of countries the US has bombed
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 10:53 AM
Yeah, I think it is clear who the real threat is:
by Klaatu
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 12:13 PM
Sorry your not feeling well, I ain't feeling too hot myself. These are tough times for many.

William, we have all been called names, I'm sorry about that too. I've been called a traitor, a dirty hippie, a terrorist, wingnut, the enemy, and on and on and more, sometimes even by our 'elected' leaders. Hey, it's part of the territory we inhabit for speaking our minds.

About Qualls and the crosses: If Sheehan is using Qualls name, then as I've already said, I would replace it with a number. But, that's me. We are in agreement here.
I've also given my reasoning for that single issue. I've indicated the irony that both sides are doing this. Don't you agree? Further when the claim is made that they are fighting for us, all of us collectively, then that puts it in a different realm, a public realm. Those are the psychological/sociological facts of the situation. There is nothing that can be done about that. They have said they are doing this for the nation, all of us and even for the whole world... hence it is public domain so to speak.

Yes I do really care what you think of Powell. We have at hand recent history which we have all experienced. This is about as good as you can get when you are trying to deal facts. It's more than just opinion.

Your attempt to divide the debate and ignore the evidence, well, I understand but they are related, intricately and immutably related. We have solved the single issue, you and I, about the crosses, even if it is divided, by allowing for the use of a number.

As a thought experiment and analogy, honestly, what would you feel like if a leader actually lied to put your son into danger and then your son was killed? Or, what if your neighbor set his house on fire for insurance money and your kid died trying to put it out. What would you do? Would you call critics of your neighbor "haters"? The normal response to being duped is anger and thirst for justice and the determination to expose. Seriously, I know the analogy isn't perfect but think about it, it's a real question.... I submit that this is what many of us feel like. It's a conclusion that can only come from looking at the evidence. Immutably related.

"for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue - weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."-- Paul Wolfowitz.
It's just one quote. All quotes are out of context but when taken together they do gain some critical mass.

Your story of the cook is interesting but open to interpretation. I too hate what America has become. I can understand the cook's statement especially if it was an outburst. I mean we have all seen Abu Ghraib, at least a little bit of it and we have Cheney and the freaking Atty General actually endorsing torture! This in no way means that I hate my fellow citizens. Sure some of them I dislike intensely but that is more a sign of my immaturity and inability to "love my neighbor". Could that be what he meant?..."why do these people still live here if they hate us so much?" Well, you of all people will know that a patriot will stay and fight for his country.

Surely the majority of the Americans who support Cindy don't feel that way. I could offer up the story of the guy who ran over the crosses, is that a good example of your side? Look at all the mainstream critics! Soldiers, ex CIA. Ex ambassadors, Generals, and more, people who have given decades of service to America. You should listen a little closer if all you hear is hate. Sure, you will find a spectrum of people, after all the anti war movement is pretty all encompassing, you'll find Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Situationists, Minarchists, Libertarians, Punks and Provo's, Republicans, Paleo-conservatives, the Old Right, Progressives, Patriots, Militia and even some Democrats, as well as CIA /FBI plants, paid provacateurs, useful idiots etc, just like on the so called "right' you'll find folks who will run over the crosses.

A data dump. No, william I don't agree with every word here, I cut my own path.

For those interested in why we fight.

The film examines eight aspects of the current situation of American foreign policy. The film provides an explanation for the obvious continuity between Cold War policies and those of the present. It examines long-term neoconservative thinking and how this peculiar version of Jacobin utopianism ascended from its rather inauspicious political roots. The film explores the dangerous territory of how the post 9-11 national shock was carefully cultivated by neoconservatives in Washington to support their own long-held objectives in the Middle East.


Dahr Jamail and Mark Manning were the only two American unembedded journalist inside Fallujah during the two sieges of April and November 2004.

Pearl Harbor

Eisenhower's Death Camps:

Google the Morgenthau plan for Germany.
Visit John Sack's "Eye for an Eye".
Visit also the following:

Other Losses
Other Losses, about the death camps for prisoners of war maintained by the French and Americans after World War Two. Over 200,000 copies sold in eleven countries.

“Stunning...”–Time magazine...

“a hornet’s nest...” –The Globe and Mail

“a truth so terrible I really can’t bear it...
a major historical discovery...”–Stephen E. Ambrose

Bush Family Nazi connections.
Start at 20 minutes in. James Buchanan... a Republican presidential candidate.

Spend some time at

For instance:

Take care William, I for one do not think your stupid, you know I could be wrong. Heh. Well, that would actually be a big relief. Anyway, I hope the sky is as blue up there as it is down here.
by Common Sense
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 10:35 PM
Honestly, do you fools think that this silly side show is going to help your cause? Frankly, I hope that you folks stay the course. It's downright entertaining...
by klaatu
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 10:59 PM

11:56 am CST
Lying by Omission

A common propaganda technique is to lie by omission. The principle is simple: If a fact undermines a thesis, leave it out.

Classic example: Neo-con news sites such as WorldNet Daily and Drudge Report are making much of the low turnout at last weekend's anti-war rally outside Bush's ranch in Crawford.

To emphasize the low turnout, the WorldNet Daily story (LINK) is accompanied by a photo of Cindy Sheehan sitting by herself at a table waiting for people to arrive for a book signing prior to the rally.

However, what WorldNet Daily fails to mention is that 200 persons did attend the rally, in contrast to only a dozen who participated in a pro-war demonstration in downtown Crawford. Furthermore, the low turnout at both events was not due to disinterest, but rather, bad weather and the holiday weekend (LINK).

Those are the facts, omitted by WorldNet Daily because they would undermine the thesis that, after months of well-attended rallies, the anti-war movement has suddenly become unpopular.

This faulty thesis is being promoted to convince the ever-dwindling number of war supporters that they are still in the majority, lest they follow their sheep-like instincts and follow the greater herd.

That is the neo-cons' greatest fear, and, judging by the attendance figures at last weekend's opposing rallies in Crawford, the fear is not unjustified.

Think about it: 200 persons put aside other holiday plans to gather in a muddy field to denounce the war, while barely a dozen persons showed up to hold a pro-war rally on dry concrete.

Yes, with a pitiful pro-war turnout such as that, the neo-cons should worry.
by To: "Common Sense"
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 7:00 AM
by William Moore
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 9:54 AM
Well now, it looks like I have your side a bit worked up. The debate of weapons of mass distruction and if Bush lied or not is an old issue, evenso, most of the world believed the weapons were there because of the intellegence they were given, so one isn't lying if one doesn't know that the information given was incorrect. Some other administrations would have bs'ed their way out of it with a little sweet talk but with Bush you not only learned the truth about the wrong information but he made sure that it was investigated as to why the information was incorrect. Fact is, Clinton reduced the funding for intelligence gathering, but then, we knew that when Clinton was in office there wasn't much to say for intelligence. "Ain't" that something how you want to use what you think is a Texas accent. I see no need to debate old news that has been debunked long ago and that seems to be where you are at. But then we have been telling the Democrats that for years now, nothing new. Just about the only matter to really debate, as far as our troops go, is when are we going to leave Iraq. That matter was settled yesterday and is still on the news today. I realize you do not want to hear what the president had to say but that's not my problem. I must commend you for being able to agree on the matter of the names on the crosses, at least I now know you are not completely heartless and I thank you for that. The guy that ran over the crosses was not on our side either and if you would have really cared about it as much as you seem you would have known that both sides condemned his actions that same day, he was acting on his own with his own reasons I assume. You appearently also do not know Keith McHenry or you would know better, before the outburst I spoke with him at length about his beliefs and about Cindy Sheehan. In fact, he told me that "his people" supported his Anti-American efforts all over the world and that he spends very little time in the United States. He told me that he was hoping that the Muslems would defeat us even if it meant killing every soldier over there. Now if you really think I am full of "meadow muffins", go speak to the man and learn for yourself, I told you who he is, one of Sheehan's cooks. I came to this site hoping to have some real debate on todays issues and maybe understand your side of the issues. What I have learned is that rumor and hearsay is more important than facts and that President George W. Bush and our troops are fighting for me not you because you can not deal with the horrors of war because you think you are smarter than those elected to defend us. I found that the left will follow anyone, if they agree with them or not, to get their agenda noticed. I find that you (your side) cry for minority rights and yet spout numbers of one group being larger than another. You speak of a man that on his own ran over some crosses but fail to mention the sexual assault on the woman at the Peace House or those that were arrested for smoking "pot" at Camp Casey. Liberals love the idea that "pot" be legalized but complain when someone smokes a cigarette, even to make laws against it to the extent that business owners are not allowed to serve those that do smoke or have a business for smokers where they can smoke. Your side claims that our soldiers are from the gettos and are forced into the military to go to college or to get a job when in fact our soldiers are from families with higher than average income and they are better educated than any soldier prior, not to mention, THEY ALL VOLUNTEERED and took the oath. I still wonder why so many liberals complain about the word "GOD" and want it off every govertment office but they don't mind the Greek gods holding the scales of justice or holding up the world being on these very same buildings, we the majority (85%) are Cristians and want GOD (although a generic word) being included in our pleadge, our money, and our buildings and we want Crist to be the reason for the season, not some X-mas or other crap. Just a few things that make up the liberal side, your side, of our "debate" and to think you called me "hypocritical"?! Oh yes, I can go on for hours about our differances but why should I? You will not even hear a single word without thinking how stupid those Texans are, but then the liberals have always thought that the only "smart" people are from California or New York, right?, wrong!. I did not come to your state to whine and cry as you did to mine, I came for an honest debate but all I got was some more whining and crying. Don't you realize that the rest of the country has been laughing at the California Liberal types for your restricting energy companies from building or producing the fuels and electric power and then you whine and cry about having blackouts when you don't have enough power for your air conditioners or fuel for your cars. I am surprised that you all haven't starved to death by now since many of you won't eat meat because it was once alive but then they will eat vegetables which were also once alive and even peas are unborn plants but are alive too. Liberals want to kill babies before they are born, called "abortion", because the mother was just having fun screwing around and she doesn't want the problems, on the other hand, they don't want murders and killers and such from being put to death. I have met some very good people in California, but I must admit they were mostly republican or not so far left as to be silly. Ronald Reagon was one of these great men from California, but then, he was from the generation of movie stars that went to war for our country and from a time that California was also known for their churches and moral values also. Boy has times changed! Much of this that I have writen may have little to do with you as an individual, I don't know, but it does have to do with those things you have discussed and/or the differances between your state and mine. As always, when Sheehan shows up in Crawford again I will be there. You know where I stand on the issues and I know where you stand on the issues, so if you also come to Crawford and see me (the ol' goat on the blue electric scooter) I hope you will introduce yourself to me, so I would know who you are, and I would be happy to shake your hand and further discuss the events of the day. I say all of this because I have other things to do to support our troops and the president than to waste my time here where neither of us consider the others views are even debatable issues, in person maybe we can have a good discussion and maybe a cup of coffee. Sheehan will be back in Crawford for Christmas and Easter, I'm told, so maybe one of us may be able to convince her to get permission from a dead soldiers family first or use a number on the cross. Thank you for being the only person at this website willing to discuss each others views in a semi-rational manner. Yes, I was ranting a bit but at least you know me that much more, hope to see you in Crawford. This time we have more of a notice that she will be here and we will have a better welcoming party there to greet her an her group. If by chance our numbers are a little shy, I don't mind, they will be in the CHRISTmas spirit and somehow she just doesn't fit into it. God Bless and Good Bye.
by Klaatu
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 12:24 PM

... "The debate of weapons of mass distruction and if Bush lied or not is an old issue, evenso, most of the world believed the weapons were there because of the intellegence they were given, so one isn't lying if one doesn't know that the information given was incorrect."

So most of the world was duped and that makes it all ok. An old issue. AN OLD ISSUE! Unbelievable. Where are you getting your talking points! This "old issue', this LIE, is why Qualls son is dead. You believed all this crap. Why don't you suck it up and admit that you were duped! Yeah it hurts, the truth often does, I know, I'm not afraid to admit that I've been duped before.

It's really hard to buy into the "bad intelligence" excuse. I guess the 10 million or so that marched in the worlds first global protest [thank you W] are all prophets. "Most of the world" didn't believe this crap. Facts are facts and the fact is they were more right than you, you were wrong.

Listen, I debunked Powell's UN evidence, all of it within about a week from my little place out in the hills. That's right, the yellow cake, the aluminum tubes, the evil drones of death, the little vial of anthrax, the whole stinking sack of lies. Hey, I could do it. Just turn off your TV and spend the time investigating. Why not? Well, like you say your not into evidence.

Dude, have you ever read the Downing Street Memos, the Dueffer report or Kay's reports? You remember when the war on Iraq was planned? You ever read the PNAC documents? Do you know about Sibel Edmunds? Indira Singh? Do you know that Perle's Pax Americana was originally written for Netanyahu? Do you remember that the Taliban offered, twice, to hand over Osama (aka Tim Osman, CIA)? Do you know we have long time spies in this administration? Yeah I know, it's only an "old issue".

Clinton? oh yeah it's all his fault. If W had any balls he would have taken up Saddam's offer when Saddam offered to fight a duel... twice. Either way, no matter who won, we would all be better off, and you can throw Clinton in as well. After all he did Bosnia. Here is something You see the game, can you detect the lie, this time by "leftish" Hollywood Penny Marshall...heh Think about about it. Could it be two sides of the same coin?

..."I see no need to debate old news that has been debunked long ago and that seems to be where you are at."

Well, I do see a need. Debunk it for me. Please. You still have not answered my questions and the list is growing rather large. Soon it will be obvious to everyone here, in public, that you have no case and are either afraid to look at the links or unable to debunk them. Which is it? Pick one chunk of evidence. Instead you will try to revive the phony Left/Right parameters, complain about cooks, pot and vegetarians all the while never acknowledging the hypocrisy within your own camp. I acknowledge the "liberal" hypocrites and attack the "right" liars. It's not so hard to pull yourself out of this game, in fact it is crucial to the future of this country.

About so called "Liberals". Socialism has taken away as much freedom as fascism, maybe more. You did check out that "Old Right" site? I can almost throw my hat in with those guys, but like I said I cut my own path. For your information I'm for the Minutemen [until they are hijacked], for guns, for smoking whatever you feel like, including pot. I hate leftish social engineering and those stupid anti-smoking laws, I hate it that the idea of a "Melting Pot" has turned into a divisive and phony "multiculturalism". BTW, why did your buddy Jim Robinson ban Freeper posters who disagree with W's nation dissolving immigration policies?? You see the game? I dislike neo-liberals like George Soros, I don't like left-gatekeepers. Check it. You can't ploy the right/left game with me, and your attempt to paint me into the phony left/right corner is a TOTAL FLOP, stop it.

The rest:
--- No I don't know Keith McHenry. sounds like a jerk, or a plant to me.

--- Do I think I'm smarter than those that are 'elected' to 'defend' me? Who was elected? 2000 was stolen and so was 2004. But who cares, the Dems and Republicans are only different management teams.

--- I guess you never heard of ENRON and the California blackouts?

--- ... "I came for an honest debate but all I got was some more whining and crying." This is a lie William, and c'mon man, who is whining about the "liberal" agenda?

--- ..."Ronald Reagon was one of these great men from California," What can I say? how about 300,000 dead in Central America. How about Iran/ Contra, how about "October surprise".

--- Morality?

William, I'll likely see you at Easter. High noon on Main street. ... ahhh just kidding. Take care.
by Klaatu
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 12:44 PM
Damn, tell you what, let's find out who Keith McHenry is and just what is going on. Maybe we can figure something out here.

Firstly, one has to wonder why he was telling you stuff that was at best inflammatory. Surely he knew it would get around and inflame the situation. Why do you think he was doing that?
Is this the Keith you were speaking with?

Related to this guy?

Interesting indeed. Anyway, i sent off an email to him to see if he would respond to this thread and state his views.

by Ouch, William has been smashed!
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 1:12 PM
Typical right wing shallow rhetoric. Can't go beyond regurgitated AM-nut radio and Fox news lies. It's OK to think for yourself William, really.
Try this for starters--see, this agenda was in place long before 9-11 (so save the tired old spin of, since 9-11......(fill in the blank)
by if he dares
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 1:31 PM

if you dare to look beyond your usual "news" sources...

read the passage linked to here, paying close attention to the 4th paragraph, and you'll see that the same chickenhawks running the show now were in fact drooling for a US conquering of Iraq a good bit before 9/11
by klaatu
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 4:18 PM
... "For some unexplained reason, the discovery of fake news stories planted by the United States government is now considered scandalous,...It must be a slow news day—or week, month, year, most assuredly a decade or more."

... "Eight current and former military, defense and other U.S. officials in Baghdad and Washington agreed to discuss the payments to Iraqi reporters and other American military information operations because they fear that the efforts are promoting practices that are unacceptable for a democracy. They requested anonymity to avoid retaliation….

Moreover, the defense and military officials said, the U.S. public is at risk of being influenced by the information operations because what’s planted in the Iraqi media can be picked up by international news organizations and Internet bloggers….

Finally, military and defense officials said, the more extensive the information operations, the more likely they’ll be discovered, thereby undermining the credibility of the U.S. armed forces and the American government.

..." the [A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm] document urges the Israelis to aggressively seek the downfall of their Arab neighbors.... This neocon policy paper, first presented to Likudite fanatic Binyamin Netanyahu, is also all about invading Iraq, as the neocons urged for a decade or more."

The rest-->
by Klaatu
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 4:39 PM

.... "I lost the self-confidence to solve our conflict with reason and negotiation. I surrendered my reasoning capacity, and my will, to our political leaders, and their government. I surrendered my properties, my liberty, my life, and those of my loved ones to a small group of leaders as long as they shouted "protection and revenge,".... Have they protected us, or enslaved us? Please look at our society, "their society," and your society now."

... "We have seen it all. Behind the grandiose "semantic obfuscation" of noble cause, there has always been a mountain of corpses of ordinary people.."
by William Moore
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 4:51 PM
Heck, I knew you were a good guy, I just had to fire you up a little to really learn who you are and to tell you the truth you sound like a very interesting person. I would love to debate you but to be honest with you I really can't anymore. You see, in January of 2004 I almost died from carbon monoxide poisoning which has left me disabled and the wiring in my brain doesn't respond as quickly as it should nor can I read well anymore, it takes me awhile to consume what I read. I am not able to walk very far, that is why I need the scooter. No I am not completely retarded, although some times I feel that I am, the doctor says that most of my intelligence is still intact. Sometimes I don't think he was correct when I attempt to type on my key board, for every sentence I have to correct at least three or four mistakes not to mention my spelling has become increasingly worse. I am not complaining or sniviling about it though, I could be dead and I wouldn't be able to pester you or my wife.LOL I can't put down your views very well, most of them are mine also. It seems that only Bush and the war are the main topics that we disagree on as I see it but I think I may have fired you up so much you'll probably disagree with me. By the way, I don't want our troops over there one second longer than they have to, but I do want them to finish the job first. I really have enjoyed conversing with you but recently my wife and I have had to deal with an insurance company that is trying to dump me and my lawyers that are taking the battle to them. I worked 23 years in the Texas and Mississippi Prison Systems but now just a little stress and well...let's just say it takes me several days to recover. On the other hand I have to stand up for what I believe in and that is why I go to Crawford and I am glad that you go there for the same reasons, even if we are on opposite sides now and then. By the way, if we are going to meet on Main Street during the summer, you'll find me eather under a shade tree or drinking tea at the Coffee Station, Texans know what the heat will do to you if you stand out in it for very long. While you are in Crawford I hope you meet our other famous person that lives there, Uncle Ted Nugent, as he likes to be called. I'll let you two duel it out and he enjoys being called "the mad man". I don't know how often I will be able to get back on this site from now on but I would like to exchange email addresses and phone numbers, problem is, this "ain't" the place to do it. Keep all those extreamist, left or right, in line as best you can, you can even take a shot at me on here every now and then if you want. Oh, did I mention that our Capital Building in Austin is taller than any other Capital Building in the nation, including the White House? LOL
God Bless and Merry Christmas to you and yours.
by LOL! William Moore cowers, as predicted
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 5:07 PM
All of a sudden he uses his "health". That wasn't a problem until the facts started flying, now was it? Oh well, another right winger, blindly gripping tight to the party line, holding onto his jingoism and unjustifiable allegance to Dubya, in spite of evidence to the contrary, making excuses for not being able to debate the facts. It's OK Mr. Moore....let us know when you "feel better" (nudge nudge, wink wink)
by Klaatu
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 7:59 PM
Ok, I don't know what is going on, the comments disappear, then the new comments that complain about them disappearing are themselves disappeared and the old ones are back. Well, thanks for putting the old ones back, but you know I'm a conspiracy theorist and this is damn fishy. Do you guys selectively take out posts? Some of them seem to be a little out of context. I'm archiving these posts from now on and will put this incident on my web log and distribute it to my lists if there is further tampering.

One more time then, this was my last post to William.

What changed to make me a "good friend" from a "supposed friend"?

Ok William, I'm sure we'll meet. Don't know much about Ted's political views except he's pro-gun, whatever that exactly means, and so am I. Why would I want only the police to have guns? I'll make a deal, take the governments guns away and then you can have mine. What does the 2nd Amendment say? Do I need a lawyer to interpret that for me? I think not. If I'm not mistaken the inspiration for the US militia system was taken by the Founders from the Swiss and it's there to defend against tyranny. In fact, if we would have stuck to a militia system we wouldn't be in Iraq. Hard to fight a global war oveseas with a militia. Obviously I'm not talking about the so called "skinhead" militias and the big fear mongering that the Clinton administration pushed after the Black op Oklahoma bombings. You ever looked into that one?

Do take some time and go thru some of the links William, they are really, really important in my opinion. Anyway, they are here for you to access.

You know, even though we never got to what I thought was the real heart of the matter it's been instructive that we can at least talk and get a little past the cold civil war, maybe a little past the Right/Left thing too and narrow down some of the issues. Doesn't mean that things won't flare up because our disagreements go beyond Bush, who is after all only a temporary civil servant.

Take care and a good Christmas to you.
by to Klaatu-the comments don't actually go away
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 8:04 PM
ou can always view the 'hidden' comments here:
by Klaatu
Thursday Dec 1st, 2005 8:25 PM
Thank you for showing me that. but why is this done? And I notice a few posts that are in the hidden area that I never even saw on the original list? They apparently were snipped in mid debate and never appeared. This is very odd for an organization that promotes free speech.

I do understand the difficulty of monitoring such a wide open forum, spamming, provocateurs and all the rest but this particular debate was on the up and up. Someone is already monitoring or posts made in mid stream would not have been hidden, so the effort and time is already there. That being the case maybe a warning to the commentors ought to be given before things just go blank.

Well I'm about done here anyway and will stick to forums.

I'll recommend this one for some pretty wide open discussion. It is monitored but usually it's the posters themselves who do it and only rarely does the mod have to blow someone up.
.... out.

by G W Bush
(nplp83 [at] Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 1:57 AM
Mrs. Sheehan or i guess i should say ms.

I have spent more than my fair share of time iraq. If there is one thing that i am sure of it is that if your son knew what you were doing he would roll over in his grave. Casey reenlisted in a combat zone!! Stop the insanity!!! He was proud of the cause that he served, and you have offically shit on his grave. GO HOME and stop the insanity!! You will be doing yourself and you son a big favor, not to mention you country, although i know you don't care about that.

by to above commenter-you're lost
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 6:35 AM
Why donb't you get an education and learn to think critically--read the links in the above posts instead of repeating what you hear on Fox news for achange. Think for yourself. Question those in power instead of blindly obeying.
by Klaatu 2
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 6:56 AM
Vietnam War Intelligence 'Deliberately Skewed,' Secret Study Says

Published: December 2, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - The National Security Agency has released hundreds of pages of long-secret documents on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, which played a critical role in significantly expanding the American commitment to the Vietnam War.

The material, posted on the Internet overnight Wednesday, included one of the largest collections of secret intercepted communications ever made available. The most provocative document is a 2001 article in which an agency historian argued that the agency's intelligence officers "deliberately skewed" the evidence passed on to policy makers and the public to falsely suggest that North Vietnamese ships had attacked American destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964.

Based on the assertion that such an attack had occurred, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered airstrikes on North Vietnam and Congress passed a broad resolution authorizing military action.

The historian, Robert J. Hanyok, wrote the article in an internal publication and it was classified top secret despite the fact that it dealt with events in 1964. Word of Mr. Hanyok's findings leaked to historians outside the agency, who requested the article under the Freedom of Information Act in 2003.

Some intelligence officials said they believed the article's release was delayed because the agency was wary of comparisons between the roles of flawed intelligence in the Vietnam War and in the war in Iraq. Mr. Hanyok declined to comment on Wednesday. But Don Weber, an agency spokesman, denied that any political consideration was involved.

"There was never a decision not to release the history" written by Mr. Hanyok, Mr. Weber said. On the contrary, he said, the release was delayed because the agency wanted to make public the raw material Mr. Hanyok used for his research.

"The goal here is to allow people to wade through all that information and draw their own conclusions," he said.

Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, called the release of the document "terrific," noting that the eavesdropping material known as signals intelligence, or sigint, is the most secret information the government has.

"N.S.A. may be the most close-mouthed of all U.S. government agencies," said Mr. Blanton, whose organization has published on the Web many collections of previously secret documents. "The release of such a large amount of sigint is unprecedented."

In his 2001 article, an elaborate piece of detective work, Mr. Hanyok wrote that 90 percent of the intercepts of North Vietnamese communications relevant to the supposed Aug. 4, 1964, attack were omitted from the major agency documents going to policy makers.

"The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack had happened," he wrote. "So a conscious effort ensued to demonstrate that an attack occurred."

Edwin E. Moïse, a historian at Clemson University who wrote a book on the Gulf of Tonkin incident, said the agency did the right thing in making public Mr. Hanyok's damning case. "A lot of people at the agency haven't been happy that communications intelligence was used to support a wrong conclusion," he said.

Agency employees worked late Wednesday to meet a self-imposed end-of-November deadline, posting the intercepts, oral history interviews with retired agency officials and internal reports on the agency's Web site at /index.cfm.

The agency, based at Fort Meade, Md., intercepts foreign communications, like phone calls, e-mail messages and faxes, and is charged with protecting the security of American government communications. With more than 30,000 employees, including codebreakers, computer experts and linguists, it is the largest American intelligence agency.

Its Center for Cryptologic History, where Mr. Hanyok works, has published studies of the role of signals intelligence in many major episodes in American history, including Pearl Harbor, the Korean War and the Cuban missile crisis. Among its most extensive projects was publishing and annotating Soviet diplomatic messages from the 1940's decoded by agency codebreakers in a program called Venona.

the rest -->>

As a senior White House aide once confided to writer Ron Suskind:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

It is futile to argue with this administration...
--- Klaatu
by Klaatu 2
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 7:09 AM
Found at Kos

Time Line: Why Franklin Arrest May Be Bigger Than We Know
by LITBMueller
Thu May 5th, 2005 at 12:00:06 PDT

I thought it might be interesting to put together a timeline of events concerning the arrest of Lawrence Franklin and compare it to when certain Neocons like Feith, Wurmser, Luti, etc. either decided to leave or were shuffled around, and out of the DoD.
By just poking around on the net, I found a lot more than I bargained for! Forgive me if this has been explored before, but, personally, I had no idea that the people uor country has been trusting with top secret intelligence information have had a history of violating that trust. That is why I think the arrest of Franklin may be a sign of bigger things to come.

Below is the timeline I pieced together. * = new update!

Diaries :: LITBMueller's diary:

1970 - An FBI wiretap authorized for the Israeli Embassy picked up Richard Perle, then a Senator's staffer and working on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, discussing with an Embassy official classified information which he said had been supplied to him by a staff member on the National Security Council. An NSC/FBI investigation found the staff member, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, who had been previously investigated in 1967 while a staff member of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, for suspected unauthorized transmission to an Israeli Government official of a classified document concerning the commencement of the 1967 war in the Middle East.

1978 - While working for the Arms Control and Disarmament agency in 1978, Paul Wolfowitz was the subject of an investigation that alleged he had provided a classified document on the proposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government to an Israeli government official via an AIPAC intermediary. However, the probe was eventually dropped.

April 1979 - The Attorney General's office recommends that Dr. Stephen Bryen, then a staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be investigated by a grand jury because he had been overheard in the Madison Hotel Coffee Shop offering classified documents to Israeli Embassy official Zvi Rafiah, the Mossad station chief in Washington, in the presence of the director of AIPAC. The investigation was eventually shut down and Bryen resigned. He then served as Executive Director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and provided consulting services to AIPAC.

1981 - Shortly before being appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (ISP), Perle was paid a consulting fee by an Israeli arms manufacturer, Soltam. Shortly after assuming his post, Perle wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Army urging evaluation and purchase of 155 mm. shells manufactured by Soltam. Bryen becomes Deputy to Perle and receives top secret clearances. Wolfowitz, as head of the State Department Policy Planning Staff, hires Michael Ledeen as a Special Advisor.

1982 - Perle hires Douglas Feith to be his Special Counsel (he later becomes Deputy Assistant Secretary for Negotiations Policy). F. Michael Maloof also becomes an aide to Perle as Foreign Affairs Specialist.

1983 - Feith is fired because he had been the object of an inquiry into whether he had provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. FBI had opened an inquiry into this allegation. Also, on the recommendation of Perle, Ledeen was hired at the Department of Defense as a consultant on terrorism, where his superior first became concerned that he was viewing classified material that he was not cleared to see.

1984 - Ledeen leaves his position in DoD and joins the National Security Council (NSC) as a consultant. He suggests to Oliver North, his new boss at NSC "that Israeli contacts might be useful in obtaining release of the U.S. hostages in Lebanon."

August 20, 1985 - Ledeen's Israeli intelligence contacts are used to broker Iran/Contra. He worked with an Iranian named Manucher Ghorbanifar to set up the deal. . Concerned over his relationship with Israel, NSC downgrades Ledeen's security clearance.

January 24, 1986 - North writes to John Poindexter of his suspicion that Ledeen, along with Adolph Schwimmer and Ghorbanifar, might be making money personally on the sale of arms to Iran, through Israel.

1986 - Feith leaves ISP to form a law firm in Israel. Maloof becomes Chief of Technology Security Operations and, at the direction of Perle, creates a task force intended to respond to the growth of front companies created for the illegal diversion of technology for conventional and unconventional weapons. Serves in this role until 2000.

1987 - After leaving the ISP in 1987, Perle goes to work for Soltam.

1988 - Bryen is the key figures behind the attempted export of "klystrons," small microwave amplifiers that are critical missile components, to Israel. Bryen resigned his post with DoD in late 1988 and worked for several defense technology consulting firms.

1992 - The first Bush Administration launches a broad inter-departmental investigation into the export of classified technology to China. During the investigation, it is discovered that Wolfowitz, as Undersecretary for Policy under Dick Cheney, was promoting the export to Israel of advanced AIM-9M air-to-air missiles. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, aware that Israel had already been caught selling the earlier AIM 9-L version of the missile to China in violation of a written agreement with the U.S. on arms re-sales, cancels the proposed deal. Feith writes in Commentary magazine, "It is in the interest of U.S. and Israel to remove needless impediments to technological cooperation between them. Technologies in the hands of responsible, friendly countries facing military threats, countries like Israel, serve to deter aggression, enhance regional stability and promote peace thereby."

1998 - Harold Rhode reportedly had his security clearances at DoD suspended, based on allegations he had given classified information to Israel, according to UPI in 2004.

2001 - As Deputy Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz helped Feith obtain his appointment as Undersecretary for Policy. Feith then appointed Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. . Rhode was officially assigned to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, but was later involved in OSP.

April 2001 - With the support of Wolfowitz and Sen. Richard Shelby, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appoints Bryen a Member of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission (his appointment is later extended through December of 2005). The Commission had been created in the last months of the Clinton Administration due to concerns about the continuing transfer of advanced U.S. arms technology to the burgeoning Chinese military program. It is suspected that this position, again, gives Bryen Top Secret clearance. Likewise, Ledeen is appointed to the China Commission and, with the support of Feith, he has also been employed as a consultant for the OSP. Again, both positions involve the handling of classified materials and require high-level security clearances.

June 2001 - Rhode meets with Ghorbanifar in Paris and discusses regime change in Iran. He had been introduced to Ghorbanifar by Ledeen, who had maintained his ties with him.

September 2001 - Feith and Rhode recruit David Wurmser, the director of Middle East studies for the American Enterprise Institute, to serve as a Pentagon consultant. He helped create the secret Pentagon intelligence unit involved in developing Iraq intelligence. Maloof is also assigned to assist with the organization of the unit.

* December 2001 - Rhode, Lawrence Franklin and Ledeen have meetings in Rome with Ghorbanifar and other Iranians and discuss regime change in Iran. White House officials OK'd what they believed was a Pentagon effort to gather info about Iranian terrorist activity in Afghanistan, but they didn't know Ghorbanifar was involved. and

Early 2002 - Wolfowitz and Feith create an Iraq war-planning unit in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia Affairs section, run by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense William Luti, under the rubric "Office of Special Plans" (OSP), into which the Wurmser-Maloof intelligence unit is folded. Luti had come to DoD by way of Cheney's office. Wurmser becomes senior adviser to Undersecretary of State John Bolton, who was in charge of the State Department's disarmament, proliferation, and WMD office and was actively promoting the Iraq war at State. OSP begins a relationship with Ahmed Chalabi, from whom they receive intelligence. Rhode also serves as a liaison between the Defense Department and Ahmad Chalabi.

* February 2002 - Stephen Hadley learn about the involvement of Ghorbanifar in the 2001 meetings, and that regime change was on his agenda. They decide further contacts were "not worth pursuing," but Ghorbanifar continues to communicate with Rhode, and sometimes Franklin, by phone and fax five or six times a week (the contacts were not authorized by top Pentagon officials). and

January 2003 - Maloof meets with a Lebanese-American friend, Imad al-Hage, who had been recruited by Maloof to assist in the War on Terrorism. Hage had met a Syrian intelligence official who had expressed frustration to him about the difficulties Syria faced in communicating with U.S. officials. Maloof arranged for Hage to meet Perle.

February 19, 2003 - Hage faxes a 3-page report on his Baghdad trip to Maloof. He indicates that the Iraqis have pledged to (1) cooperate in fighting terrorism; (2) give "full support for any US plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process; (3) give " first priority [to the U.S.] as it relates to Iraq oil, mining rights;" (4) cooperate with US strategic interests in the region; (5) allow "direct US involvement on the ground in disarming Iraq."

March 7, 2003 - Hage meets with Perle and Perle tells him he wants to pursue the matter further with people in Washington; a few days later, he tells Hage that Washington refused to let him meet with Habbush or discuss any peace offers. As the month goes by, Hage continues to pass on urgent messages from Iraq to Maloof and others. Perle and others have knowledge of the peace overtures, but no action is taken.

May 2003 - Maloof is stripped of his security clearance after the FBI link him to a Lebanese-American businessman under investigation by the FBI for weapons trafficking. A handgun registered to Maloof had been found in the possession of Hage, who is suspected of dealing arms. Investigators begin to seek to learn whether Maloof's alleged contacts with Hage and a hard-line former Lebanese general, Michel Aoun, may have been part of a back-channel effort to destabilize Syria, which has occupied Lebanon for nearly two decades. raq?pg=2 and

June 2003 - Rhode meets with Ghorbanifar in Paris and discusses regime change in Iran, but his communications with Ghorbanifar end shortly thereafter. The meeting had not been authorized by the Pentagon.

June 26, 2003 - FBI observes Franklin divulging secret information re: Iraq to AIPAC's Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman while having lunch.,1413,234~24410~2853235,00.html

June 30, 2003 - FBI find the document Franklin disclosed in his office, pursuant to warrant, and Franklin admits his guilt in an interview. FBI search Franklin's home and find 83 documents of various levels of classification being held illegally. Franklin is stripped of his security clearance.

September 2003 - Wurmser is moved from State to Dick Cheney's office, under Scooter Libby, as Middle East adviser.

August, 2004 - FBI gets Franklin to pass a fake tip re: a plan by Iran to attack Israeli operations in the Kurdish regions of Iraq. Rosen and Weissman pass the info on, and fall into the trap. FBI raids AIPAC offices. Franklin later stops helping FBI, fires his public defender, and hires a top a D.C. defense lawyer.

August 24, 2004: UPI reports that Rhode and Luti are being investigated by FBI for passing classified material to Israel.

August 27, 2004 - CBS reports on the Franklin case, and it becomes public.

December, 2004 - FBI raids AIPAC once more. Grand jury subpoenas are issued to four top staffers: Howard Kohr, executive director; Richard Fishman, managing director; Renee Rothstein, communications director; and Raphael Danziger, research director. page=1

January-February 2005 - Several of the above four top AIPAC staffers testify before a federal grand jury convened by U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty. page=1 . AIPAC places Rosen and Weissman on paid leave and Franklin is quietly rehired at the Pentagon, against the FBI's wishes, in a non-sensitive position.

Late January 2005 - Douglas Feith announces he is leaving his post later this year, , but he will still be involved in setting defense policy. Specifically, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

* February 8, 2005: A "team" that includes CIA search the documents of Sen. "Scoop" Jackson stored at the University of Washington, reportedly to remove any classified materials. Besides Perle, Feith is a former Jackson staff member (Thanks to Miss Devore and the Kos diary of This time) March 7, 2005 - Bolton nominated to be next UN Ambassador.

* March 2005: Former Mossad senior official and head of the Institute for Policy and Strategy at Israel's Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, Uzi Arad is questioned by FBI in connection with the Franklin probe. He is told that his name came up three times in connection with Franklin. and April 16, 2005 - Paul Wolfowitz is announced to be the new head of the World Bank, although he, like Feith, will still be involved in the QDR.

Late April 2005 - AIPAC dismisses Rosen and Weissman.

May 3, 2005 - Luti is moved over from DoD to the NSC.
by Klaatu 2
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 12:05 PM
.... "Some guy calling himself “the Dread Pundit Bluto” is confused because Google returns Uruknet as a news site. Mr. Bluto was in search of news on Norman Kember, the Christian abducted in Iraq by the fake resistance—or alternatively one of the Pentagon’s black op counterinsurgency pseudo-gangs—and stumbled upon one of my blog entries, posted on the Uruknet site. According to Bluto, it stands to reason Kember, a pensioner in his mid-seventies with a long history of pacifism (the 1950s, according to Kember’s family, he chose to work as a hospital porter rather than enter into any form of military service), is indeed a spy, probably because Mr. Bluto, like so many Americans, believes whatever pabulum the corporate media feeds him. Of course, this should probably be expected from a guy who goes by the name of a thick-witted cartoon character.

Instead of telling us why he believes my assertion arrives from “tinfoil hat territory,” Mr. Bluto instead decides to play a semantic game, stating that white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, as I erroneously stated in my blog entry. Indeed, white phosphorus is not technically a chemical munition, like nerve or CS gas. Instead of elaborating on this “faux pas,” Mr. Bluto mentions in passing my assertion (well enough documented) that the Pentagon is running counterinsurgency ops in Iraq and concludes I am insane. Of course, as a good (brainwashed) American, Mr. Bluto believes the Bushcons and the Pentagon are sincerely incapable of such behavior and naturally Arabs and Muslims are responsible for such. Yes, of course, and Saddam had a tea party with Osama, and Saddam showed Osama his shiny new aluminum tubes. I know this because Judith Miller and crew told me so. Never mind that Judy now admits to being a scurrilous liar, although she does not characterize herself as such (she simply made “mistakes” contributing to the mass murder of over 100,000 Iraqis).

Normally, I ignore chowderheads such as Mr. Bluto, real name unknown. But I couldn’t resist because the guy is a primary example of the typical brainwashed American completely void on the subject of military and intelligence history.

Mr. Bluto is the prototypical American no-nothing."
by William Moore
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 9:30 PM
I respect KLAATU because while I was playing a little "tag your it", he stepped up as a real human even if we do not see everything eye to eye. But you are a dirt bag for your comments about my health. I thank God for just being alive and that I can get on my computer and speak with may old and new friends but I consider you neither. My condition is something I have to live with the rest of my life, you I don't, so kiss off you wimpy internet warrior and go play with your baby sister's dolls. I did not intend to get back on this site but I just had to check out what my friend, KLAATU, might say as a final note. I should have expected the spineless to jump in after I was gone to get mouthy. You must have missed the part where I stated that I was a Correctional Officer/Administrator for 23 years, and I assure I am used to dealing with punks like you. I know I have many problems with my health but I wasn't born a dumba-s as yourself. Get your own life, I'm quite busy with mine.
by Klaatu 2
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 10:25 PM
William, you have to ignore such things but also consider that maybe it was partly frustration for the evidence not being addressed.
Here is an article from Alex Jones' site. Take it into consideration, I know it may be a bridge too far, but I think it is mostly right and shows why we would have to all pull together. Forget about the Bush bashing in it... there are more important things. I know, it's a conspiracy, more than a double cross, it's a triple cross and many of the players likely have no idea. It might be called a theory but a theories value lies in how many questions it answers and this does answer quite a few indeed.

Think about it William, and take care.
-- Klaatu
by Klaatu 2
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 10:44 PM
by William Moore, playing the health card
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 11:27 PM
You were provided multiple links w/ information that rebutted your assertions. You were unable (after you extended invitations for debate) to address them in any coherent way. When it got to be too much for you, you copped out, using "health" as an excuse. Before you realized that you would be up against some formidable debators, with a plethora of information to support their arguments, you were a big talker, requesting to debate. Then you got slapped down, and called on it, then threw a temper tantrum. Maybe you should go back to your right-wing sites where they are long on rhetoric and short on facts. And quit whining about being a 'correctional officer'--that doesn't impress anyone--most of them are cowards who wouldn't bust a grape unless it is 10 on one.
by TW
Saturday Dec 3rd, 2005 3:46 AM
Courage means having the strength to face the truth, even when it sucks.

But William Moore is a "Corrections Officers," which is just a puffed up title for a very pure type of bully, and bullies are always cowards who can't face the truth.

Belligerent cowardice, self-deceit, and worship of authority are the bedrock of the right-wing mentality

People like William, i.e. "Corrections Officers," have an added stake in the religion of state authority, because it's the magic mental potion that takes all their viciousness toward the inmates and reframes it as "heroism," "altruism," "discipline," "honor," etc.

What a sick lie!

If you hired on as a "Corrections Officer" but you didn't have William's psychology and were truly just a nice guy who wanted to help people, you wouldn't hack it for long, just like you wouldn't hack it being a cop. The others would do whatever it took to drive you out. People like you are the antithesis of the basic social functions of police and jailers.

Cops are the janitors of the "civilized" social order. Their job is to keep society nice and tidy according to the specifications, aka "laws," handed down to them by the mafia known as the "ruling class." As such they are 1) goons, and 2) properly seen as enemies by anyone whose net worth is less than several million $$. Consistent with this, their posture toward the general public is suspicious, belligerent, essentially predatory. As mafia goons, they're violent criminals in their own right. If a given cop's psychology isn't consistent with this, the force doesn't want him -- he'll upset the basic social function of police work instead of serving it.

The basic social function of prison is to take the defiant hardcases rounded up by the cops and destroy them emotionally, or failing that just kill them. They're a serious threat to the class order (which abhors competition), and prison is where that threat gets liquidated. Jailers, then, are more sadistic and purposeful than the street thug police, since their job is to destroy the free will and self-respect of individuals, an extremely cruel exercise. They must be heartless haters, then, race bigots being particularly valuable. No other type serves prison's basic social function.

So to be a cop or a jailer you must 1) truly enjoy the malicious, criminal aspects of your work and 2) relentlessly lie to yourself about their true social function, or (more likely) be too stupid to figure any of that out. In this way, the mentality that mindlessly worships state authority is a perfect fit and is sure to succeed.

Small-town police forces usually do NOT fall cleanly into this model, but it's rock-solid as it pertains to the head-basher squadrons of major urban areas and state prisons
by Nydia Leaf
(nyleaf [at] Thursday Dec 15th, 2005 8:25 AM
Thanks for your coverage in words and pictures! If you don't mind, I'd like to offer the suggestion that references to the Crawford "Ranch" be an "estate" since the word "ranch" seems to connote working with livestock. The only work going on at that estate is with the stock market!! The so-called ranch was created in time for Dubya's Republican nomination in 2000 - Amy Goodman and various New Yorker magazine writers have been calling it an "estate" and I would encourage NION to do likewise.
Best wishes,
Nydia Leaf