HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mc Mike » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

Mc Mike

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Nov 23, 2011, 05:50 PM
Number of posts: 1,239

Journal Archives

You're right about the uselessness of 'apologies' when the offense is repeated again, flagrantly.

Or even covertly.

I back Rep. Conyers in his work against repug election theft, and his work on behalf of his non-NOI constituents, and his Congressional Black Caucus work.

I think that pols like John C. and Jesse Jackson are within the range of the money and force arms of the NOI. For a very long time, the schism between Chicago and NY crime had Detroit on NY's side, the same as in Pgh., where I live. But Detroit is perilously close to Chi., and Farrakhan's money and connections are big. If you look at where the NOI comes from, how it was formed, where it gets its money and influence, you're looking at far-right bircher money and far-right intel.

If presented with any organized effort to lobby Rep. Conyers to never associate with the anti-Gay, anti-Semitic, anti-Woman, pro-Black Nationalist Farrakhan, I will be on board 100%. You're right about Conyer's attendance of the 2 '14 speech, but I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater regarding Rep. Conyers on this. In fact, I believe that the far-right who hates LGBTs also hates Conyers, and purposely forced him into this position to further schisms between groups of people they hate.

I see a bit of a parallel between Conyer's association with Farrakhan, and Moscone and Milk's association with Jim Jones. I believe the far right would have attempted to kill Harvey Milk, anyway, but the proximate cause of the Milk and Moscone assassinations was the murder of Rep. Ryan when he was investigating Jonestown. It is very much alluded to in Fierstein's documentary, Shilt's book, and Bay Area LGBT activists efforts at the time.

Jones already had a crazy and murderous record from his "People's Temple's" time in Ukiah, CA. He moved to S.F., with his big money and large personnel resources, and was a political force to be reckoned with when the Moscone Milk group took SF mayor and Supervisors. Aides to Milk were troubled by the behavior of the Jones personnel, and Milk cautioned them that the group was crazy and dangerous. Moscone put Jones in charge of the Housing Authority, but I believe he was forced to do so, not because the Jones people passed out flyers for the coalition, but because Jones had big money right wing backers who had to be contended with, by the Mayor and City Supervisors.

There is no doubt that Milk and Moscone were opposed to the insane moves by Jones, in Jonestown and S.F. The far-righties behind Jones felt that Moscone and Milk were going to blow the whistle, when Jonestown came crashing down, which explains their being murdered much better than twinkies can. There have been ridiculous efforts to tar Moscone and Milk with 'association with Jones', but the fact that they were assassinated puts the lie to this far-right effort to engender a schism between groups that the far-right hates.

Antecdotally, in my city, there was an isolated, high-crime housing project called Westgate Village. Back in '90 -'91, the 'Security' for this project was provided by the NOI. They decided that they didn't like an illegal card game being run in one of the units, and some of the Fruit of Islam attacked the place in force. They got their asses handed to them in unarmed combat, by the residents, and other members came back to fire-bomb the unit. Unfortunately, they didn't know the area, were out-of-towners like the rest of the Fruit of Islam security force, so they hit the wrong unit, and burned a single-mother and her family out of their home (no deaths). I just mention it because it was a high profile display of Housing Authority corruption, municipal fraud, increased influence of Chicago organized crime in Pittsburgh, and sweetheart contracts given to the Nation of Islam. The firebombing wasn't part of the policy of the Dems who run our area, it was purely a Farrakhan initiative, though the NOI got the contract for security through Dems. And Pittsburgh's own Black Moslem leaders were already on the record years before, in calling Farrakhan 'the biggest fool on the face of the Earth'. The Black residents of Westgate Village, and the non-aligned Black Moslems in Pittsburgh, didn't like Farrakhan, and don't back him on anything, including his anti-LGBT 'theories'. He speaks for the far-right, not Blacks, Moslems, or Democrats.

Farrakhan is from the right, of the right. People within his org's armreach have to deal with him. Conyers is wrong, but not bad.

There was an interesting tie-in between the anti-healthcare ads and the tv ultrasound bills

that Rachel Maddow caught, and Galraedia posted 9-20-13.


Bryan Slater was an "Americans United for Life" v.p.. He was in charge of the successful ram-rodding of model legislation that pushes mandatory t.v. ultrasounds, that the patient had to pay for, in a dozen repug controlled states. Slater moved over to the Koch brothers funded "Generation Opportunity", to run the creepy 'Uncle Sam doing gyn exams' ad campaign!

A typical picture of the way nazi repugs work. The repugs ARE the creepy uncle sam 'government' wielding a large probe as a weapon, then they project that crime falsely onto their political enemies, to avoid fallout from their insanely fascist legislation, and to attempt to make political gains on another health legislation front.

Here's a few notes, professor

I caught your 'simile - synonym' correction, thanks for tossing it. I'll leave 186 unedited, this line shows acknowledgement of my mistake, well enough.

Drop the lawyer act, just come right out and accuse mad of lying about having taught. Otherwise, your long-winded response in #187 -- with 4 sets of q and a s which don't really say what you want, but just imply it -- appears to be a tactic that is taught in 'De-Railing Conversations 101'.

Your use of 'motivation' in your third q shows you could use some time brushing up on definitions or reading comprehension, because it was a question about mad's actions, not the reasons she has for performing them. So bringing motivation into your answer doesn't respond to the question in a clear way, it just further obscures things. To a lesser extent, minor academic mistakes like mis-spelling weird and compliment can be avoided by clicking the helpful 'check spelling' box to the lower left of the reply box. These things tend to discredit your intellectual and academic capabilities, but there's no harm in being mistaken, as long as you learn from your mistakes.

If you feel that hostile responses populate the thread, at some point a reasonable person might take a moment to reflect on their own style and ask 'could it be something I'm doing that engenders this common response from diverse sources?' My take on your style is that you have a very thin veneer of 'humor', where you write accusations of lying and whining in a veiled manner. The accusations show real hostility, (YOU are angry), and you chortle up your sleeve that you got one over the jury system again. But it's not a happy laugh. If you're pretending to be polite, you aren't really convincing anyone else that is the case.

Your virginity simile, and exhaustive list of synonyms, aren't disturbing or shocking, they're just odd stylistic flashes that add nothing to the discussion. It's odd and ironic that you permit yourself these useless flashes, since you indict blogs as 'not primary sources', yet here you are on-line essentially functioning as a blog yourself, indicting blogs. And there are plenty of primary sources in the posts from mad or Diane Ravitch, which brings the derailed conversation back to the fore. This was written in the WaPo blog (of Post Education reporter Valerie Strauss), and it's something that you dismiss because, you know, it's a blog (so the arbiter can arbitrarily declare that primary sources and expert opinions aren't meeting their high expectations, and can therefore be mislabeled and ignored):

"Apparently, the department believes that more testing will help special education students achieve more in school. But since No Child Left Behind started, the standardized test-based “accountability” era more than a dozen years ago, there has been no evidence to show that standardized tests have improved student achievement, or that linking test scores to teacher evaluations has created better teachers."

It's a fact. It's a widely acknowledged fact, that bears discussion, and mad and other public ed advocates are trying to discuss it. You keep ignoring the testing end of things (example posts #70, 101, 139, and 186 are places where the issue was brought up, and you gloss over it, like you just don't see it.) The advocates and opponents of high-stakes nclb testing are continuing to say that public education is losing ground, it's observable reality. Opponents have been saying for over a decade that l'il bush's policy was just an attack on public education, an attempt to destroy it and steal the money for his wealthy cronies. But they were just bloggers with an opinion. (As usual, advocates are saying we should just stay the course, we just haven't enacted the policy fully enough and it needs more power and time to succeed.)

An afficionado of The Smirking Chimp, who use a 'lost virginity' simile to prove a point, might appreciate this: l'il bush's education policy is 'the Iraq invasion' of education policies. Bloggers opposed the Iraq debacle, saying that it was a horrible idea. Proponents said that there was no primary source to back up the assertions that his team was only interested in oil, profits, power; he was 'really' doing it for peace, democracy, national security, humanitarian interests. Opponent bloggers were all over the place with their conjectures (it was for the oil, it was revenge against Hussein, it was the chimp one-upping his dad for Freudian reasons, it was so he could consolidate power as a war president, it was so he could take Iraq's oil off the market to benefit the Saudi Exxon bottom line, it was so contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater could bleed us for obscene profits, etc.) They may have disagreed about the motives, but all agreed that the chimp was lying, and the results would be disastrous. Proponents said that those bloggers were all over the board, and had no proof that their suspicions were justifiable. These proponents' objections served to enable the bush Admin.

Here we are, 11 years later, and the results are disastrous. The opponents' predictions were proved true, the proponents' justifications proved disastrously false. Similar to his foreign policy, the chimps' Iraq War style education policy is a disaster, that he lied about to get implemented. We still get to see the architects of these failed plans opining on primary sources, all the time. Because the big money people are happy about the results, though they vary wildly from the stated aims used to justify the policy implementation. I'm not blaming you for Iraq with this simile or analogy, you just remind me of the Iraq policy proponents when you pursue your justification of l'il bush's 'Iraq Invasion' Education policies. Same tactics, same de-railment, same 'you can't prove it', for the same results.

Does your business happen to involve work with Rhee, Pearson, Broad, Gates, or any of the other witches brew of profiteers who want to destroy education and make big bucks out of denying non-rich Americans of the ability to learn? I only ask because it would go a long way towards explaining why duty called the educator-businessman to dust off the old account and suddenly re-enter the fray to forcefully back the Iraq invasion of education policies, while making thinly veiled insulting false accusations against a demonstrably good educator and Democrat like mad. Especially when any competent researcher knows that all over the country bad news is pouring in about educational opportunities for non-wealthy public school students, whether you accept the sources as primary \ substantive or not.

Your post # 460, last Jan 22 (in your o.p. of Jan 15), had info on an alternate route.


I mistakenly thought the road was 'Commerce' or 'Commercial', it was 'Industrial'. Deputy Chief Lumpkin (who was Army Intel Reserve, and in the motorcade's pilot car), said in your link that Industrial was not a good route, because it was run down and winos hung around there.

Lumpkin's name came up twice in Russ Baker's Family of Secrets , once in connection with the motorcade and its route (On the re-routing, Baker said on p. 110 that "Officially, the decision to reroute the motorcade from Main Street to Elm, in front of the Book Depository Building, was made only a week before the event--by two Secret Service agents", but Baker didn't name the official source or the agents who changed the route). Lumpkin is first mentioned on p. 115: "on the day of the assassination, Deputy Police Chief George L. Lumpkin was driving the pilot car of Kennedy's motorcade...Lumpkin was a friend of Jack Crichton, Poppy bush's GOP colleague" (Crichton was running for statewide office alongside Poppy bush, Crichton for Gov, Poppy for Senate)..."Like Crichton, moreover, {Lumpkin} was a member of an Army Intelligence Reserve unit. (Lumpkin would later tell the HSCA that he had been consulted by the Secret Service on motorcade security, and his input had eliminated an alternate route.)" Baker didn't mention that the route was via Industrial, unlike your HSCA link. "In the car with Lumpkin was another Army officer, Lt. Col. George Whitmeyer, commander of all Army Reserve units in East Texas, who happened to be Jack Crichton's boss in the Reserve. Although Whitmeyer was not on the police list of those approved to ride in the pilot car, he had insisted that he be in the vehicle and remained there until the shooting. The only recorded stop made by the pilot car was directly in front of the Depository building. Lumpkin stopped briefly there and spoke to a policeman handling traffic at the corner of Houston and Elm."

A bonus mention of Army Reserve unit involvement comes from Russ on page 188. He pointed out that the Bottlers' convention, which was scheduled at the same time as Kennedy's visit to Dallas, held a rodeo to entertain 200 orphans, and the Army Reserves volunteered to provide trucks and drivers to transport the kids to and from the arena at Fair Park (close to the site of the Crichton-led Dallas Civil Defense group's underground emergency bunker and communications facility. Crichton, like Ferrie and Oswald, was big on Civil Defense.) Baker pointed out that the bottlers' convention brought Nixon to Dallas, brought 8,000 strangers to Dallas, sent army vehicles into action on city streets the night before the assassination, and by taking the biggest Dallas venue, helped determine Kennedy's venue and the motorcade route.

The other mention of Lumpkin in Baker's book is on page 119. Within hours of Kennedy's death and Oswald's arrest, a right wing repug party activist and precinct chairman, white Russian emigre Ilya Mamantov, stepped in and functioned as an interpreter between Marina Oswald and investigators, embellishing her comments to establish in no uncertain terms that 'leftist' Lee Oswald was the gunman-the lone gunman-who killed the President. "It is interesting of course that the Dallas police would let an outsider--in particular, a right-wing Russian emigre--handle the delicate interpreting task. Asked by the Warren Commission how this happened, Mamantov said that he had received a phone call from Deputy Police Chief George Lumpkin. After a moment's thought, Mamantov then remembered that just preceding Lumpkin's call he had heard from Jack Crichton. It was Crichton who had put the Dallas Police Dept. together with Mamantov and ensured his place at Marina Oswald's side at this crucial moment. Despite this revelation, Crichton almost completely escaped scrutiny. The Warren Commission never interviewed him."

Harrison Livingstone's The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy discussed motorcade planning while talking about a problem with the postmark for the money order Oswald allegedly sent to obtain the murder weapon. It was for 10:30 a.m. on 3/12/63, but during this time Oswald was working for Jaggers-Chiles at some distance from the post office, he was punched in before the post office opened, and his time sheet accounted for each of the jobs he did that morning. "... the job he was working on the longest that morning was for his employer's client, Sam Bloom, the man who later worked closely with the Secret Service to set up the motorcade and Kennedy's visit to Dallas eight month's later. Sam Bloom was an 'associate' of Jack Ruby who was reputed to be Oswald's friend." (p. 209, Livingstone, source cited Warren Commission vol. 22, p. 516.) Mr. Livingstone's book is poorly indexed, and jumps around topically quite a bit, and he says 'Sam Bloom' instead of Mae Brussell's 'Sol Bloom'. Maybe 'Sam' is an Americanized version of 'Sol'; I've never seen them both written together in any source discussing the P.R. agency who was handling the publicity and political side of the motorcade planning, as opposed to the security side.

James Hepburn's Farewell America said on p. 352 that Secret Service advance man Winston Lawson and Dallas S.S. head Sorrels drove the motorcade route with Chief Curry on Monday, Nov. 18. "After they had driven through the center of the city and reached Dealey Plaza, Curry pointed down Main Street past the railroad overpass and said, 'and afterwards there's only the freeway.' But instead of turning right into Houston Street in the direction of Elm Street, as the motorcade did on November 22, Curry turned left in front of the Old Court-house, and neither Lawson nor Sorrels followed the parade route past that point...This type of double turn is contrary to Secret Service regulations, which specifiy that when a Presidential motorcade has to slow down to make a turn, 'the entire intersection must be examined in advance, searched and inspected from top to bottom'. Curry, however, brought the reconnaissance to an end at the very point where it became unacceptable (as well as unusual) from the point of view of security."

When Curry pointed down Main and said, "and afterwards there's only the freeway", that might have been the route Senator Yarborough remembered taking in previous motorcades, Curry's implied route seems to match the 'Main St. to Stemmons Freeway' route description. Why Sorrels, who was the head of Dallas S.S., would need a guide or be unfamiliar with Dealey Plaza and the Freeway ramps, is beyond my ability to explain reasonably. But given his frenetic activity post-assassination to deal exclusively with Zapruder's footage, maybe some 'Occam's Razor' advocate could offer the simplest explanation of Sorrels' activities, abilities, and motivations. To me, it seems like Hepburn's source for the 'dry run' events and conversation was either Lawson or a written report from Lawson.

Thanks for the link to the N. R. article, and the Agents Go On Record link, Octa. There had to have been a lot of good Secret Service agents on the job, or Kennedy wouldn't have lived as long as he did. But none of those agents were in command on 11/22, instead Pat Kirkwood's drinking buddies were in charge. The New Republic article from Dec. of '63 is excellent, it does a good job of compiling the constantly altering details of the emerging 'official story'. I like those early sources, watching the authorities trying to explain things that are known and undeniable, then their explanation trips them up, then they have to re-explain. I really like lines about the '30 Cal Enfield/7.65 mm Mauser/.25 cal Army or Japanese rifle they found on the 2nd, 5th, and 6th floor and in the stairwells, which changed into the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano that Italian rifle-makers 'customarily' leave their name off of, to prevent their products from being immediately identifiable. Even better that Oswald was across town at work when he purchased the money order at the post office in another part of town to pay for this remarkable weapon. I'm pretty sure he would have faced some kind of wire fraud charges for a transaction like that, had he lived.

There's a good analysis of the Parrott memo in Russ Baker's book 'Family of Secrets'

It runs on pp 45 through 66 (paperback version). I'm not saying you must read my source, though. To sum it up: Poppy bush was in Dallas campaigning against Kennedy and the Democrats on 11-21 and 11-22 morning. He was in Tyler, Texas (he alleges) prepared to give a repug campaign speech, and heard that wires from Dallas confirmed that the President had been assassinated (1:38 pm Central). He didn’t give the political speech. Instead, a few minutes later, he called the FBI to 'finger' Parrott (1:45 pm Central) -- 'There's this guy who volunteers for the organization I'm leading, and he's been talking about killing Kennedy. Gee whiz, I hope he didn’t do anything rash against the guy I’ve been railing against in my Senate run. By the way, I’m not in Dallas, I used my oil buddy’s private jet to go to Tyler, and I’ll use it to go back to Dallas, now'. Fortunately for James Parrott, at the exact same time of the call, Poppy's right hand man in the Harris County repug Party, Kearney Reynolds, was visiting Parrott on behalf of bush to coordinate repug campaign activities with him, and so could provide an alibi to the FBI for Parrott. So what was the point?

There are several points, actually. First, as author Russ Baker points out, bush phoned a FBI agent named Graham Kitchel with the tip. Graham's brother George, an offshore oil engineer, was good friends with Poppy, long-time friends according to an interview George K. himself gave. This ensured his useless tip, among hundreds of calls fielded on what may have been the most hectic day in the FBI’s history, would get action and documentation, unlike a lot of other ‘tips’ that weren’t worthy of documentation. It wasted the Feds’ time and resources, but that waste wasn’t caused in furtherance of a plot against JFK. What the documentation of bush’s ‘tip’ ‘from Tyler’ did, was ‘establish’ the ‘fact’ that bush wasn’t in Dallas, though he was in Dallas on the morning of the 22nd and (according to bush) ‘flew back and was in Dallas on the afternoon of the 22nd’. The FBI memo functioned as a paper trail that explained bush’s presence in Dallas before and after the assassination (because many people saw him there), and ‘established’ that he wasn’t there during it. The result of the useless tip was that “Parrott became Poppy’s alibi, and Poppy’s assistant became Parrott’s.”(--Baker, p. 61). It’s the Texas two step.

Hoover didn’t like the Kennedys, but had no lost love for bush’s bircher crowd, either. He also knew that if they could kill JFK, they could kill Hoover. His reaction to the bush ‘tip’ was a memo of his own a few days later, saying ‘Mr. George Bush of the CIA , we’ve been watching that crowd of armed extremist Batista Cubans you’ve been training, and we think they’re trying to use the assassination as a pretext to launch a war from our soil against Cuba. We know that’s illegal, and we ARE in the business of law enforcement, after all.’ (Those Cubans are the people who Oswald had documented involvement with, working both in favor of their cause and, as the only documented member of the FPCC in New Orleans, ‘against’ their cause. Carlos Bringuier, Antonio Veciana, Col. Orlando Piedra, Sergio Arcacha Smith – those Cubans.)

Hoover’s memo was also important because Poppy denied being in the CIA until he was appointed to lead it, and denies having been in the CIA from the 50’s – 70’s, to this day. Hoover blew bush’s cover, quite purposefully, and told bush’s crowd that they had reached the end of their chain, in action terms.

The reaction to Hoover’s move was an immediate set of leaks in December to Dallas D.A. Wade and ‘friendly’ (to right wing repugs) Dallas reporters saying that Oswald was an FBI informant. And in January, Texas A. G. Waggoner Carr sent Warren Commission General Counsel Rankin a memo about the allegations. Carr said the allegations came from Dallas D.A. Wade, and Wade was unable or unwilling to specify the source of them. That’s the Texas repugs and CIA man bush’s crowd saying ‘How about we pin the assassination on you, Hoover?’

Interestingly, when D.A. Wade was giving a late night press conference as Nov. 22 ended, he identified Oswald as a member of the ‘Free Cuba Committee’. He was corrected by a strip-club owner named Jack Ruby, who had mixed in with the crowd of reporters, and who said ‘That’s the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.’ (The Crusade to Free Cuba Committee was an anti-Castro pro Batista Cuban expatriate crowd who had offices in the New Orleans building at 544 Camp Street. Oswald distributed flyers stamped with that address for the pro-Castro FPCC, he distributed those flyers on the street outside that building, and used that building as a base for his ‘work on behalf of’ Castro.)

I remember discussing Wade’s actions with Zap, the DU WC advocate last year. Why would a DA in a high profile international press conference take public correction from a mob flunky, instead of having the cops remove the guy from the room? How did a mob flunky strip club owner come to have such in depth knowledge about obscure pro and anti Castro groups, to make sure that the anti-Castro group didn’t get blamed, but the pro-Castro group did get blamed? Those two lines from the press conference showed that Wade knew Ruby, and Ruby knew Oswald, but the response to my question from Zap was a glib ‘Why don’t you ask Wade?’, (who is dead).

And finally, regarding Parrott: Baker’s book talked about an interview conducted with Parrott in ’93. The high interest in the Kennedy assassination in the early ‘90’s had led to Congress unanimously passing the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of ’92, which caused the Parrott memo to be released. This generated interest in Parrott, and he gave an interview in ’93. He noted that he had worked for bush’s re-election campaign in ’92, and “in an article covering the frenzied GOP-convention podium attacks on the Clinton-Gore team over family values, Parrott is described as passing out flyers saying ‘no queers or baby killing’, while wearing a plastic shield over his face, explaining that it was protection against the AIDS virus.” (-- Baker, p. 63, sourced to Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter Steve Berg, 8-19-92.) Parrott was a teabagger 17 years before the movement existed. He suffered no harm from bush’s ‘tip’. If he did, bush wouldn’t have cared, because Parrott is deranged teabag cannon fodder. But he didn’t.

Parrott’s party activism illustrates a point: for those of us who find the ‘official story’ yarn spun by the Warren Commission to be composed of a thousand loose threads, we’re not just re-hashing academic historical facts about the murder of JFK. We believe that the people who committed the crime benefitted from it, and they and their heirs are still around hurting the country. Exposing them will help prevent them from hurting the country more.

Thanks for posting this segment. Where would the repugs be without projection and double think?

Using this Bryan Slater seems like an in-your-face propaganda tactic, designed to reduce the impact of Dem and Women's charges that the repugs are forcing creepy, evil, invasive big government intrusion into women's health care. So if they accuse Dems first, then we wind up saying 'No we're not, you are'. Which sounds like a lame second grade argument on the playground. They're trying to steal the force of massive outrage against their Koch bircher nazi ALEC model legislation, and use it, projection style, for a second nazi Koch initiative, destroying the Affordable Care Act. Muddy the waters on the issue of who are the creepy big government officials getting their hands on our health care.

My hat's not really off to the Koch brothers and repugs for their genius on these tactics. They just have way too much money, time, and freedom to do these things, and a bad primary school kid shows the same level of tactical thinking.

The second post-er on this OP has a good point, too. Uncle Sam's 'creepy' now, for this ad, and it's acceptable to say that, as long as it's the repuglinazis saying so. In reality, 'Uncle Sam' is creepy when the Kochs' teabaggers are at rallies dressing up like Uncle Sam, but the repugs would scream accusations of 'unpatriotism' if detractors pointed that out in the media.

Right. 'Precious human life' for month zero through 9,

turns into 'starve the little welfare fraud to death' the second after it is an actual born human being.

They downgraded the gov's credit rating,

which caused market uncertainty that threw the stock market for a loop,

which caused investors to take refuge from the financial storm

by buying government bonds,

which they had just adjudged less reliable.

Ponzi, con game, pyramid scheme. That's the stock system.

+1, thanks for posting, DV.

A tangential piece of trivia that I'd like to point out: at the end of December of '08, I did 2 searches on yahoo, one phrase 'impeach bush' and the other 'impeach obama'. After 8 years of doing all wrong and no right (even by accident) there were 17.5 million hits for impeach bush. But at -.25 years in office, as just the president elect, 'impeach obama' yielded 35 million results.

Their people truly deserve impeachment, and our side forbears. The repugs running congress did nothing to hold the crooked malfeasant bush administration to account. Our administrations deserve to have the repugs shut up and get the hell out of the way, so we can fix the mess the repugs created, so naturally the repugs discover their sense of outrage and need for checks-and-balances oversight. They didn't think bush should answer for anything, when he clearly belongs in jail, but now they're trying to figure out some reason to use that nifty impeachment tool.

Treasonously sore losers, they are.

All your posts in this thread are right on, JDP.

Interesting how the gov demands rights for themselves that they strip from us.

For national security purposes, they must know everything about us. For national security purposes, we can't know anything about their actions.

Brad Blog amplified a Chris Hayes piece June 28 that highlighted a second "national security vs. whistleblower" contradiction, that showed another double think double standard:

"Hayes cites Starr's reporting in order to point out the hypocrisy in how some leaks, those seemingly meant to make the Pentagon look good, are, apparently, perfectly fine in the eyes of many of the very same people who have otherwise criticized --- and even called for the arrest of --- both Snowden and Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who had the temerity to report on Snowden's leaks."


I never saw if anyone put this on DU at the time, but it didn't make a big splash, if it was posted. (And I haven't lost track of the fact that we're talking about Manning and Wikileaks, not Snowden and Greenwald. Not trying to conflate the 2 issues, either.) Chris Hayes 5.5 min video is included in the bb link, good ideas worth viewing. The 8 para sum up of Hayes' idea is a quick read, anyway.

And a final 'national security' double think that is troubling is that so much of this information is already known. Whether it is the mechanics of the REAL 9-11 attacks on us by our enemies, or our attacks on our enemies in the world wide theater of war, or the collateral damage our attacks induce causing us to LABEL non-combatant innocent victims as 'enemies', or our treatment of the UN and Spanish and Italian governments as 'non-friendlies' -- in every case, the other parties already know what they did and what we did, the only people who have to be kept in the dark about the facts are the hundreds of millions of American citizens who don't have national security clearances to know classified info. So, who is being treated like an 'enemy of the state' here is obvious.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »