Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 25, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Czeslaw Milosz: A Life

Truthdig Bazaar
Whose Knees Are These?

Whose Knees Are These?

By Jabari Asim

more items

Email this item Print this item

The High Cost of Libby’s Silence

Posted on Jul 3, 2007

By Amy Goodman

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” says the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Unless, of course, you are a friend of the president. By commuting “Scooter” Libby’s sentence, President Bush is also protecting himself and Vice President Dick Cheney.

    I asked former Ambassador Joe Wilson what he thought about the commutation. It was his 2003 opinion piece that refuted Bush’s claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. In retaliation, the White House leaked the name of his wife, Valerie Plame, and her CIA identity. Wilson said, “It casts a cloud of suspicion over the president and begs the question whether the president is participating in an ongoing obstruction of justice and cover-up of criminal activity within the White House.” I asked him how: “By ensuring that Libby will have no incentive to talk with the special prosecutor.”

    Prisoners often cooperate with government prosecutors in exchange for leniency. With the prison sentence gone, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald loses his leverage over Libby. While Bush and his subordinates stress that Libby still faces a $250,000 fine, the Libby Legal Defense Trust was set up to help him out.

    Among the listed trustees are former senator, TV actor and likely Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, and former CIA director and Iraq war booster James Woolsey. Woolsey’s firm lobbied for the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi’s CIA-funded group that provided faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the war. Woolsey was also a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and involved with the Project for the New American Century, two influential groups that helped provide intellectual cover and political muscle for the invasion of Iraq. Given the power and wealth represented on his fundraising team, Libby will do just fine with his fine.

    Blogger Marcy Wheeler, who followed the Libby trial closely, told me: “In some ways, commutation is worse [for the cause of justice] than a pardon. With a commutation, Scooter Libby retains his Fifth Amendment rights.” If Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., for example, were to call a hearing, Libby could still plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, remaining silent. Had he been pardoned and been completely cleared of any wrongdoing, then he would have a harder time refusing to answer questions. Libby’s continued silence protects Bush and Cheney.


Square, Site wide
    The commutation also allows the Bush administration to remain silent. As Bush said, “I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted.”

    So the commutation ensures that Libby will not cooperate with Fitzgerald, and will not cooperate with Congress. Why does this matter? Because this case is not about obstruction of justice, it is not about perjury. Ultimately, this case is about war.

    The Bush administration’s case for war depended on false claims about weapons of mass destruction. President George H.W. Bush hailed Wilson as “a true American hero” for his role as acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. But when Wilson publicly debunked the George W. Bush administration’s claim about African uranium, he was attacked, his wife was outed, her career ruined. Her job: an undercover CIA operative investigating weapons of mass destruction. This week, the United Nations formally closed down its weapons search program in Iraq, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. So much for WMD.

    Thompson released a statement after the commutation, saying, “This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.” Good Americans sent to war, and who died, now number close to 3,600. They will not be getting on with their lives. And let’s not forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. More than 20,000 Americans are wounded, some with limbs lost, some blinded, some brain-damaged. They have no choice but to get on with their lives, but without a star-studded fundraising committee.

    The Declaration of Independence speaks of unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It also says that when a government “becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

    Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 500 stations in North America.

  © 2007 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Michael Shaw, August 7, 2007 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

Margaritas ante porcos

Report this

By Paracelsus, August 7, 2007 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

“Ah! c’est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses,” would be the would be the rejoindre. Who needs further analysis on differential calculus? You are definitely a card. smile

Report this

By Michael Shaw, August 7, 2007 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

92765 Well I would expect no less from a guy who quotes dead astronomers from conversations with Napoleon.

Report this

By Paracelsus, August 7, 2007 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

You can drone as much as you like. Res ipsa loquitur

The reader can roll back on his browser and peruse the the actions of Democracy Now as I have reported them.  You have built a tower of suppositions and characteri- zations. Frankly it looks all very silly from where I sit.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, August 7, 2007 at 12:39 am Link to this comment

Here LaRouche blames Brzezinski(and others) for 9/11

What a windbag!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, August 7, 2007 at 12:07 am Link to this comment

IE Economy in exposition…Sumptus censum ne superet.

Guilt by association is how you tagged Berkel, Goodman and the ACLU. Relevant associations vs conspiracy theories lay in two different arenas. Your arguments stand where you left them…...A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

As for Larouche,

And associates…..

Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author, lecturer and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the military industrial complex. He envisions a model of false flag terror operated by a rogue network of independent operatives in the privatized military intelligence sector and corporate media.

Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author and historian. From 1991 to 1995, Tarpley worked with the political movement run by Lyndon LaRouche, and was a frequent host of “The LaRouche Connection” described as “a news and information cable television program produced by” LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review News Service.[1]

The exposé of the Bush family.Tarpley first gained attention for co-authoring, with Anton Chaitkin, (“history editor of Executive Intelligence Review”) a 1992 book on George H.W. Bush, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, which was published by Executive Intelligence Review, run by Lyndon LaRouche.[2] He has expounded the “Versailles Thesis” laying the blame for the great wars of the 20th century on intrigues by Britain to retain her dominance. He gained experience as a political operative during his years with the LaRouche movement but broke away in the mid-90’s.

Tarpley is a member of the world anti-imperialist conference Axis for Peace, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and of a research Netzwerk of German 9/11 authors founded in Sept. 2006.

Report this

By Paracelsus, August 6, 2007 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

Mr. Shaw, guilt by association is very weak gruel. In the words of Pierre Simon de Laplace, “Je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.”

I have elucidated instances of relevant omissions of fact, and bad faith dealings of the Democracy Now organization. I think I have bested you in economy of exposition.

Please tell us more about Lyndon La Rouche. I think I can be magnanimous enough to hear you indulge yourself on such a tangent.

I am just saddened that you have resorted to this Bertelesque device instead of considering the human equation in all this. Tant pis pour nous.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, August 6, 2007 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment


IE “A Devastating Example of Doctrine Overriding Principle in the Case of Amy Goodman”

Paracelsus, your presumptions are amusing but they fail to wash away the underlying realities about who are really behind these conspiracy theory groups and when seeing an attack on honest journalism by these said groups, either directly or in principle, what other assumptions do I have than to believe you share some complicity in the matter? I’ve done the best I could to bring forth this relevance and see no need to apologize for it!

Now in all fairness to you I don’t know you from Adam. All I do know is you obviously and enthusiastically support and defend these groups (and complicit or not,their masters) at the expense of independent media. When we see who these folks really are and who endorses them, who they endorse, etc, we find some troubling analysis. In retrospect, my “tactics” are no different from your own in trying to “expose” Amy Goodman, Chip Berkel, the ACLU and perhaps anyone who supports or believes in the entire progressive movement, as accomplices to right wing agendas. The exception(at least in my opinion) is that Amy is a respected progressive journalist and with no need to argue further, those on your side of the coin are not respected and I see no reason promoting the idea they should be.

LaRouche is entrenched in the 9/11 conspiracy and has long been a catalyst in pitting one group of liberals against another. So when I see someone who is endorsing these groups that have such dubious associations to them, I have no logical recourse but to scrutinize them, expose them and question their motives in attacking liberals and progressives.

You now come forth and attempt to base your arguments on dated novels in fiction(about the French and Russian revolutions no less, two of LaRouche’s favorite subjects) which only reinforces my beliefs that much of what you’re expressing here comes from Mr. LaRouche or perhaps some offshoot of his “New Left” movement. The indoctrination at least seems certain. 

By attacking those who are actually trying to help the progressive movement, you only weaken it and render it incredulous and the real kicker in all of this is you’re basing your convictions on the lack of an interview and the lack of a story you believe should beset all other relevant events that Amy certainly covers.

Comparing Amy to Scooter Libby is as laughable as comparing Lydon LaRouche to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Also in supporting groups who support those who set up militia’s with their own courts and stockpile ammunition while arguing the differences between doctrine and principles is absurd!

All I’ve seen here on your part have been attacks on the ACLU and honest media. Well sir, I’ve flown to Washington on more than one occasion, have lobbied congress and joined in the good fight to preserve democracy many times. What have you done sir beyond your attempts in dragging those who have struggled to present honest media or who have tried to maintain our freedoms through the mud?

IE “It is especially shameful to engage in such mud slinging” Isn’t that what you’ve been doing to Amy Goodman and Berkel, the ACLU and God knows who else?

Need I remind, it was you sir who began these attacks in the first place, not I. By doing so you have become fair game to rebuttal. You presented your side and I exposed the facts that are hiding on that side, something I am positive that you yourself would never have willingly brought forth. Whether you are calling in to some organization or not is irrelevant. But what you are doing here seems obvious.

Report this

By Paracelsus, August 6, 2007 at 4:58 am Link to this comment

A Devastating Example of Doctrine Overriding Principle in the Case of Amy Goodman

Dr. David Ray Griffin had consented to an interview with Amy Goodman. There was a meeting of minds, a contract, an understanding, a coming to terms. An interview…

Unbeknownst to Dr. Griffin, he was subject to a debate with Mr. Berlet. This is the sort of tactic Fox news would engage in. It is a shabby way to treat any human being.

In comparison to the current controversy I recall, Boris Pasternak’s Dr. Zhivago. I recall how the story portrayed the lack of consideration of the human factor in the brutal pursuit of doctrine. I am also reminded of the novel, “The Tale of Two Cities”. I know well that the means are the ends. I know well that unprincipled implementation of doctrine discredits the the doctrine, no matter how worthy it may be. I am weary of media from the narrow spectrum of the current left-right dialectic that deems certain events and facts as politically incorrect. I am reminded of Ignatius Loyola’s frightening mal-aphorism, “We sacrifice the intellect to God.”

Report this

By Paracelsus, August 6, 2007 at 3:18 am Link to this comment

I do not phone back to headquarters. I have no affiliation. I resent that you would say I have some ulterior motive. That is exactly the tactic that Berlet would engage in. It is especially shameful to engage in such mud slinging when people’s lives are hanging in the balance! And I see that doctrine is more important than principle in some flavors of liberalism. I happened to feel the Constitution is just as gravely disregarded when someone from a political viewpoint foreign from my own is unjustly injured. How dare you, sir!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, August 6, 2007 at 2:14 am Link to this comment


There is nothing wrong with principles and trust me sir, I don’t need you to tell me what mine are. But frankly, the more I look into these groups you promote, the more I begin to realize that those who are behind them have no principles. Why don’t you simply come out and say it, come out of the shadows and tell us who you really are. Will Lyndon LaRouche have the courage to step forth? The king of the so called New Left? The guy who said the Queen of England was the world’s biggest drug dealer, who said MI6 was trying to assassinate him? The guy who said The Beatles were a creation of Britain’s psychological warfare division? Lastly and most importantly, the guy who sent out thugs to beat up on legitimate leftist organizations until they fought back and whoopt some right wing ass?

You’re a very smart guy Paracelsus. Very smart indeed. That makes me realize your endorsement of said groups does not make you an “innocent” participant or innocently mistaken. The very tactics you are using in here to smear Amy Goodman along with Chip Berkel come right out of the LaRouche play book.

As you express you compassion for the so called underdog(As LaRouche does, at least publicly) I see nothing compassionate about you or your movement beyond it’s own deranged illusion that it is more important than anything or anyone else. Well sir you are gravely mistaken.

Report this

By Paracelsus, August 5, 2007 at 9:38 pm Link to this comment

@ Mark Shaw 92350

To quote, “Now tell me, on these grounds why should I, Amy Goodman or anyone with a reasonable sense of sanity fall prey to the paranoid delusions of a group like “We Are Change?”

Isn’t principle more important than doctrine?

@ 92340

To quote, “Well Paracelsus you can think what you wish but I have already said my peace and I’m content to stand upon it.”

There is a principle as well. I think it is well summarized be the famous Rev. Dietrich Bonhoeffer quote. Are you saying you have no care for Carrie Rowe? Is it a break with your political doctrine that makes you so cavalier?

As for Ed and Elaine Brown, you do not agree with them politically, I take it. What if the government went in and burned their house down? What if they were killed by the overwhelming force of Federal law enforcement? Would you be incurious as to finding out if the Browns had their constitutional rights violated? Do people have to share your politics in order for you to have a heart?

More on “Chip”, John Foster Berlet, namesake of John Foster Dulles:

I have read his history and he has done many good works. He is prolific in fighting racist groups. But I think his monomania can hurt innocent people who have nothing to do with racism, etc.

To quote nambase:

Since the 1970s, Chip Berlet has researched Lyndon LaRouche and the U.S. Right. Now he’s suspicious of an emerging conservative populism, and criticizes progressives who have been co-opted by insidious alliances with fascists, anti-Semites, and racists. According to Berlet, this is most evident among D.C. information junkies and on West Coast public radio. His crusade is an effort to hold progressives accountable for their unwitting naivete at best, or their political incorrectness at worst. Berlet and friends wear white hats, others wear black hats, and there are no gray hats.

NameBase indexed this diatribe because Berlet’s work is unique. It is simple common sense for all of us to be aware of who associates with whom; for this reason Berlet’s research is also valuable. But I have a problem with his presumption that a moral issue is involved, and I object to his tactics. Don’t ever trade information, participate on a panel discussion, or share membership on an advisory board with one of Berlet’s designated bad guys. If you do, he may try to undermine your work and isolate you. In my book, that’s suggestive of the very “neo-fascism” he’s trying so hard to eliminate.—D.Brandt

A most egregious fault of tyranny is that reality is political. Science cannot exist on its own; it must be Soviet science, or Nazi science, or Catholic Church science. Science as literally knowledge is like a tree falling out of earshot if it does not conform to the big idea. So then the tree never fell.

I find the same conundrum with ethos. Without the conformity of doctrine, the harm done does not bear recognition. This can be dangerous where media is funded by powerful institutions. For years leftists would not recognize the harm done by the Soviet Union to Kulaks. Millions of peasant farmers died because they refused to have their farms collectivized. These farmers right wing reactionaries, enemies of the revolution. Mainstream Canadian and American media for the most part ignored the slaughter. The liberal, progressive media overlooked it, though I do recognize their good work on such butchery as Augusto Pinochet, the concentration camps of Germany, etc.

I question ideological monomania that ignores inconvenient truths. That seems to the way of the world, and I am saddened by this.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, August 5, 2007 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

As for John Foster(Chip) Berlet, here’s a guy who has spent his entire adult life as a photo journalist tracking right wing movements in this country. He’s one of the first guys to expose white supremacists and anti Semitic groups who were recruiting Mid-Western Farmers in the late 70’s-early 80’s. He serves on the advisory board of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution. He was an active member of The National Lawyers Guide who are self proclaimed progressives. He exposed Lyndon LaRouche, the father of the so called “New Left” as the fanatical right wingnut he truly is. I’d like to add, LaRouche accuses many of his critics like Berlet of being part of a government-affiliated conspiracy against him.

His biggest enemy is neo-liberal Davis Horowitz, a devout Zionist/neocon who supports every military action that Bush and Israel partake in or want to partake in, especially the invasion of Iran. Other then that his other enemies come from the recent new wave of radical leftist organizations, particularly conspiracy theorists.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, August 5, 2007 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

Paracelsus, I have an issue I’d like you to address! Why do “We Are Change” support people like Ed & Elaine Brown of Plainsfield NH? Here’s a guy who failed to pay income taxes on more than 1.3 million dollars in earned income over a 4 year period, who joined a militia he believed was setting up its own courts, who stockpiled guns and ammunition and food supplies because he thought the federal government was going to basically invade itself, who went to trial with his wife under the names of “Edward, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel,” and “Elaine, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel.” a guy who even admits its easy to dismiss him as a nut case?

Now tell me, on these grounds why should I, Amy Goodman or anyone with a reasonable sense of sanity fall prey to the paranoid delusions of a group like “We Are Change?” If this is the kind of change they endorse, I’m libel to cast down my lifetime roots in liberal activism and vote republican! And if the truth be told, that is exactly the effect that groups like “We Are Change will have on most Americans.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, August 5, 2007 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

IE… I think you innocently overlooked this moral outrage…..Well Paracelsus you can think what you wish but I have already said my peace and I’m content to stand upon it.

Report this

By Paracelsus, August 4, 2007 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In Reference to the Camera Law Story

The New York Times published the proposed law on June 29th. Mr. Alex Jones, the “evangelical”, brought this up on his show around this same time. The Alternet blog posted the story on July 29th or there abouts. Democracy Now! did a segment on it on August 2nd. The camera law went into force on August 3rd. The most likely provocation for this law was the “We Are Change” organization. The folks interviewed by Democracy Now were Beka Economopoulos from the coalition Picture New York, Christopher Dunn from the New York Civil Liberties Union, and independent filmmaker Jem Cohen. I think Amy would call this burying the lead, if it were anybody else but her.
I think most could forgive me for overlooking Amy’s 11th hour effort. I had fatalistically neglected to see DN’s latest efforts as earlier news about William Rodriguez had been published in the New York City press. DN had the benefit of me tipping them off about the maintenance man, Rodriguez, who received serious burns in the basement of one of the WTC buildings. I called their news desk and asked them to cover the story. Down the memory hole that went. Now why are they so phobic about covering

  I would think they would be Bloomberg’s main nemesis as well as the inspiration for the camera law. BTW, you can see Amy Goodman dodging a question posed by the We Are Change people on As for the David Griffin interview, a spokesman for the official story, John Foster Berlet, was called on to debate Dr. Griffin. (Mr. Berlet has been a recipient of Ford Foundation grants, and has connections to the CIA. Please do your own diligence on this. If I am wrong I will admit to it.) In summary I do not think Griffin received a fair hearing.

  As for Corrie Rowe, I think that the people at DN are not only failing us journalistically, but as a matter of honor and integrity, they had failed a young man, who is facing the full power of a corrupt and ruthless regime.

  Mr. Shaw, I think you had innocently overlooked this moral outrage of DN. Could you address this issue?

Report this

By Michael Shaw, August 4, 2007 at 1:35 am Link to this comment

PS I would like to add that if you bothered to watch or listen to Amy’s show yesterday you would realize that Bloomberg’s camera insurance scam was one of the main topics on her program.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, August 4, 2007 at 1:08 am Link to this comment

Paracelsus don’t you think you’re going a bit overboard(along with the rest of the “my way or the highway” conspiracy crew? Amy Goodman has been called a lot of things in her day(always by the right), but being silent or complicit with major media has never been one of her shortcomings. If it weren’t for people like her we would know nothing about anything beyond the rantings of FOX News and other Rupert Murdoch rags. She also gives credibility to the progressive movement where conspiracy theorists on the other hand make it look comical. Michael Moore (who you seem to appreciate)respects and endorses Amy, her “Democracy Now” and her “Exception to the Rulers.”

As for Stephen Jones, all one can say is he is surrounded in controversy he himself created over his WTC theories paper that he said was peer reviewed and yet could not reasonably substantiate his assertions, at least according to most of his peers. I’ll grant you BYU is not exactly what one would call a domicile of free expression. But that aside, what do you want from Goodman? Her show was the first syndicated program to even air conspiracy theorists on a national broadcast! She featured David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, on her May 26, 2004 show. Frankly that took balls to do that!

Furthermore, Dr. Jones is no stranger to major media having been interviewed several times during several public appearances. Underexposure is hardly one of his setbacks. On one hand he “urges caution about jumping to conclusions” and on the other he “publicly asserts with a considerable degree of certainty!” Sounds like a mid-life crisis to me! Apparently so to many of his peers who refer to him as the paranoid professor.

As for Scholars for 9/11 Truth, why would a man with such an incredible scientific background surround himself with professors of the humanities rather than professors of the sciences? More questions arise when you realize Mr.Jones was a devout and loyal supporter of George W. Bush until recently. The fact he is a Mormon even adds more fuel to the fire. Will he support Mitt Romney? One only needs to wonder.

I won’t say the man doesn’t pose some interesting speculation, especially in light of the Silverstein interview stating they pulled tower 7. I even found it interesting enough to post a link of it in another dig. But again and in hindsight, that film with the venerable, evangelical/infomercial commentary of Alex Jones(of no relation), all we are seeing there are selective sound bytes just as we have come to expect from major media. To me that still leaves the jury out. 

The fact that “Right courts Left” Robinowitz is needlessly(and ridiculously) bashing Amy only adds to the notion that perhaps this is nothing more than an attempt to make the left attack itself and hopefully implode enough to allow another neocon victory.

Conspiracy theorists by nature see conspiracy in everything. That’s how I look at this whole Goodman analogy. Everyone who doesn’t agree with their theories must somehow then be complicit in the plot! That practically falls in line with Bush’s perpetual war against unseen enemies that are everywhere!

The real question here is in the legality in firing professors because of statements they make. That makes Churchill Ward just as important as Doctor Jones, at least when it comes to the 1st amendment and realizing the trashing of civil liberties is no conspiracy. Having lost a friend in the towers on 9/11 doesn’t endear me to his “little Eichmann’s” analogy but at the same time I know why he said it and what he was talking about. One needs only to understand the long term relationship of Wall Street and the “Merchants of Death” to comprehend his meaning.

Frankly I put nothing past this administration. Nothing! That said I would take the word of Amy Goodman any day before I believed a word coming out of the mouth of a Mark Robinowitz.

Report this

By Paracelsus, August 3, 2007 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

More Under Amy’s Nose: News Blacked Out

First of all where is Amy when New York’s Mayor Bloomberg has succeeded in putting force a law requiring permits for journalistic filming? This law puts high barriers upon citizen journalists. They must put up a bond of a million dollars as part getting a permit to take pictures and video in public. The “We Are Change” organization has been aggressively asking questions of such elites as David Rockefeller, Alan Colmes, David Gergen, and Mr. Bloomberg himself. The permitting was ostensibly used for Hollywood film crews doing movies in New York City. Now the permitting process is being sicced on small independent journalists. Permitted speech is not free speech. This clearly an effort on the part of NY’s elite to silence alternative media? Doesn’t Ms. Goodman have a dog in this fight?

Secondly, Corrie Rowe the young man Any condescended to allow on her show last Sept 11 to debate the 9-11 issue with unctuous Popular Mechanics “journalists” has been arrested by the Army for desertion. The silence of Democracy Now is deafening. If it were a large workforce of illegal aliens detained by ICE, Amy would be all over it. But a man who has clearly given the establishment media a black eye over the 9-11 issue,  is ignored when it comes to selective enforcement of the law that compels service of a traumatized man in a meat grinder war. If he had kept his mouth shut, the Military Police would have left him alone. This sort of disrespect for truth and fairness by Goodman and company is fantastically audacious. This is a man who shook hands with her 9 months ago to be on her show. It is particularly cold blooded, and soulless. Oedipus had good reason to blind himself to the truth. As for Democracy Now, it seems most mercenary.

Report this

By Paracelsus, August 3, 2007 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What about Amy Goodman’s silence on the 9-11 issue? I remember the We Are Change gang trying to interview her on that issue. Michael Moore had more more kidney then Amy in declaring that he felt the disaster was an inside job. Good on Mike. J’ai regret, mais la temptation etait trop forte, Madame Amy. Foundation elites like Amy tend to think those who disagree with them are ignorant hillbillies. Pardon me for the showboating. BTW, don’t you think you should be covering “We Are Change” gang? I would think you would want to get the “yute” audience so that you can show how mod and “kewl” you are. I harken back to how you gave coverage to an old plagiarizing war horse over Stephen E. Jones. There you were in Salt Lake City for something completely forgettable right at the same time Dr. Jones was being fired for actually using science and original thought about WTC. Then off you go to see Mr. Ward “scheiss heel”. It burns in my mind like the trauma of betrayal; it is indelible. Go ahead talk about Libby’s silence, for your silence is just as damning as his own. A complicit media is a depot’s most valued ally.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 14, 2007 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

Godsend, I don’t believe Christ was married to Magdalene but there is no doubt that of all the apostles, she was closest to Christ. When he resurrected she was the first he appeared to. I only wish her gospel were a part of the New Testament. It belongs there as does Peter’s and Thomas. To exclude the rock of the church from the gospels seems ludicrous. Actually the other apostles were jealous of Mary, including Peter. But in Peter’s gospel he acknowledges the closeness between Mary and Jesus. It is sad that in fact today’s bible doesn’t even consider Mary an apostle. Just as Paul and the others, she went out into the world spreading the word.

But the Di Vinci Code is a sham. Though it borrowed heavily from the Gnostic’s to lend it credibility, it has already been exposed as a fraud, not only by scholars and clerics, but by the guy who wrote it. It has no reflection however on the Gnostic’s themselves who have never portended that Christ and Magdalene had sex, children or were married.

Never knew some Christian sects were calling Jesus gay or a transsexual. I would be fascinated to know who they are!

Anyway it’s back to Libby! Thanks for your input!

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 13, 2007 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment


I didn’t think you were trying to covert me to Gnosticism. I have been ‘born again’ and no further spiritual conversions are possible or necessary wink There are all kinds of sects, including ‘Christian’ sects, in which I do not have the slightest interest! Any ‘Christian’ who condones or practices violence (especially bloodshed, murder or torture) CANNOT be a follower of Christ! (past, present or future). I’m also not interested in trying to find out if Christ was married to Magdalene and how many children they had, that He may have been gay, that He may have been a transsexual, cross dresser or that He was a bricklayer and not a carpenter. I don’t care who claims to have found His tomb, grave, body, ashes, teeth, sandals or contact lenses. What I look forward to and try to prepare for is really only one occasion: SEEing Him face-to-face. That’s it. I cannot possibly describe my expectation of that moment.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 13, 2007 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

Godsend, I merely proposed it as a study, I wasn’t trying to convert you. All of it is Christianity and those Codecs are as old as and ligitimate the Codecs Alexandrinus which resides in London’s Museum of Science and History.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 13, 2007 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment


Holy Scripture is defined as “The Inspired Word of God” where I come from smile All men are fallible but God, Who is infallible, can choose to speak through any man (or woman) of His choosing (and usually has/does). He makes sure that there is no ‘error in translation’ or omission wink

There are no legitimate reasons for searching for ‘lost’ gospels that would fill some missing gap. As I said, all that is necessary to know for salvation is already available smile Once you find the Truth and the Life), it is redundant to keep searching for it! The Truth and the Life is Jesus the Christ! smile

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 13, 2007 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

86601 Ernest, I wholeheartedly agree!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 13, 2007 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Well Godsend I agree that God is not corruptible. But unfortunately men are and men wrote the Bible, not God. I’ll agree that most of the 50 original Gospels were similar in content and basically had the same message. Still there were some significant accountings that were diminished from what today stands as the modern Christian Bible.

The Gnostic Christians were slaughtered in what became known as the forgotten crusade. The church slaughtered them, called them heretics, then stole their land because they didn’t believe they had to worship in or more importantly send money to a man made institution. They also believed that heaven was not in the sky but right in front of us and all around us.

You should check them out. I find them a fascinating study.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 13, 2007 at 10:40 am Link to this comment


I wouldn’t be too concerned about the completeness of Scripture. Remember that the current contents are not (just?) the result of decisions made by mere mortals - they have been determined by God’s Divine Will! God is omnipotent and omniscient - and He is NOT the author of confusion or deception (that’s the Devil’s domain!).

In fact, Jesus the Christ’s recorded Word (red-letter text in most Bibles) is sufficient to stand alone and reveals all you need to know for enlightenment and salvation. smile

Come to think of it, the Gospel of John may be sufficient, all by itself, accompanied by the Grace of God, of course! smile

Read my quote from T. Austin-Sparks about the role of reason in trying to understand spiritual matters, posted here earlier. It is EXTREMELY important to realize that spiritual understanding (of Scripture, for example) does NOT come by the application of reason, in the first instance. Many theologians and their students study Scripture and other spiritual writings, thinking it can be analyzed by reason alone. Invariably, they come to a ‘dead end’ (pun intended) and do not understand anything. Just like our Constitution is not just ‘a God damned piece of paper’ (Bush) the Bible is not just ‘a God damned book’ (as Bush would say). He would say that because he trashes the Bible as well as the Constitution by his actions!

The bottom line is that Christ’s message of salvation is very simple and very clear - but very difficult to accept. Coming to Christ’s Cross with humility requires Self-denial to the utmost and complete trust in God, regardless of circumstances - possibly to the point of death. That ain’t easy!

Report this

By cann4ing, July 13, 2007 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Good point, Michael.  No doubt the swift boaters are already being lined up.  But then I get the feeling these vets will be more than up to the task.  Cerena’s observation that efforts are being made to bring these Vets before Congress and the American people is welcome news, indeed.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 13, 2007 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

86525 Cyrena let’s not forget what happened in 1971 either. Remember Nixon hired and coached his own henchman, John O’Neill to try and discredit Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show. Bush will no doubt do the same and hopefully fail just as miserably as Nixon did.

Of course the passage of time can be a valuable ally. Look what the neo cons did 30 years later with the Swift Boat Vets. The fact that O’Neill didn’t serve with Kerry for a full year was rendered mute. They used sound bites and deception to discredit Kerry, making him look like a traitor, costing him the election to chicken hawk Bush.

Report this

By cyrena, July 13, 2007 at 12:22 am Link to this comment

#86511 by Ernest Canning on 7/12 at 9:46 pm

I know you didn’t pose this question to me, (but rather Michael) I wanted to add a note.

....“What we need to do is get Congress to bring these vets forth to testify, just as vets did in the 70s when John Kerry first appeared on the national scene as a member of Vietnam Vets Against the War.  If you link to their accounts, let me know whether you agree with the strategy….”

Just to say that not only do I agree, but that we’ve been working with these same brave men and women, (at least some of them, from the original formation of a couple of these groups)and they are (hopefully) in the works with getting this set up…just so that they CAN get an audience before a Congressional Committee. Just like back in the day.

These guys here (and on Democracy Now…also on have actually made major progress, in the amount of time that they’ve had, and it has put nearly ALL of them, in conflict with those who will continue to pillory them, and use the bureaucratic tricks of retaliation, to make their lives as difficult as possible. (as if it could get much worse, for most returning vets). So, there’s been that extra strain on them, to try to get the message out. Standard tactic of the Cabal, but they’ve been braver than most.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment

86511 Well first of all Ernest and let me say from the start, I believe every word these guys are saying! I also believe it is a great idea to get them out there where they can voice the true situation in Iraq to the American people. I strongly agree with the strategy and I’ll do the best I can to be a part of it!

You know as I know, the corporate media won’t give these guys the time of day(lest we forget the fireworks of shock n awe being shown over and over while the results of it were intentionally edited) and the neocon hardliners will simply pass them off as a few disgruntled servicemen. The blatant arrogance of the right wing will do all they can to discredit these guys. Still I believe as you do. It took Vets to lay down the truth about Vietnam and it will take the same determination this time around.

I applaud these guys with all my heart!  I support them along with all of our troops and like them, I blame Bush and Cheney for all of it! 

And thanks for sharing the damning truth about this war and this perverted administration!

Report this

By cann4ing, July 12, 2007 at 10:46 pm Link to this comment

Michael, on “ending the war,” I would direct you to the vets who reveal the scope of their experience in Iraq on Democracy Now!  Here are the three links.

As a vet who served in Vietnam, I know that there is no one who can provide as devastating assault on the moral bankruptcy of the occupation than those who have served.  What we need to do is get Congress to bring these vets forth to testify, just as vets did in the 70s when John Kerry first appeared on the national scene as a member of Vietnam Vets Against the War.  If you link to their accounts, let me know whether you agree with the strategy.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment

Well Godsend I would love to see that preemption! Also I’m glad you liked the verse. These disorderlies among us must be made to eat their own bread!

I’d like to add I enjoy biblical studies, especially concerning the Gnostic verses. When we look at it from an historical standpoint and realize Constantine’s need to quickly consolidate his power (via Christianity) meant removing 33 of the 50 Gospels it makes one wonder if the true word of God is being served as it should be. For example: Why were the Gospels of Peter and Mary(Magdalene) excluded from the Bible? Both were the closest to Jesus and yet the Emperor decided they weren’t mandatory.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 10:05 pm Link to this comment

86449 You know Ernest there is so much supposition out there it’s incredible. I read a blogger on Gravel 2008 who says he supports impeachment but he is more so entangled in ending the war in Iraq. that sounds like a cop out to me. I can’t find a report anywhere that shows us Gravel speaking in support of or endorsing impeachment anywhere. He didn’t have a vote on it since he’s a former senator but frankly I think you’re right.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 12, 2007 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment


I thought the context was what should we do about Bush? You say: Impeach him and let him rot in jail, I say: Impeach him BUT I think God will preempt us. He’s a ‘special case’ who deserves the Lord’s ‘special handling’ for all to SEE! (like A. Sharon). The people keeping Sharon alive probably don’t realize that they’re putting him through living hell! If they did, they would let him die. I could be wrong about that, of course (Bush’s fate).

It’s always good to see quotes from Scripture appear in Blogs, though smile

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment

86436 LOL Godsend, that actual phrase came from Ben Franklin who of course was a deist which meant he believed in God but didn’t believe God was involved in all of our day to day activities. Frankly I consider myself to be the same.

Like many quotes that people believe came from the Bible, there is no verse that says, “The Lord helps those who help themselves.” Still some believe it is supported by some biblical verse, including the one below.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 says: “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you. Nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. Not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you we commanded you this: if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all but, are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment

86449 Breaking News Ernest, I got this from one of my Libertarian friends. According to this article two republicans supported impeachment and one of the two was Ron Paul.

Report this

By cann4ing, July 12, 2007 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment

Michael, thanks for the heads up on Paul’ support for impeachment.  I question the accuracy of your assessment on Gravel.  When asked at the first Democratic Presidential debate for a show of hands as to who would join with Kucinich in calling for Cheney’s impeachment, every candidate, including Gravel, stood stiffly, afraid to move.  Only Kucinich had the wisdom and the courage to pull out a little pocket-sized booklet we call the “Constitution,” pointing out that this is what it is all about.  It is a booklet that Cheney threatens to reduce to an historical footnote.

As far as I know, Gravel has never explained his failure to raise his hand.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 12, 2007 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment


Remember the Lord helps those who help themselves.

I’m trying to remember, MS, but ‘no dice’. Where did you get that line, anyway?

Some of the Lord’s Grace falls on us all - even on agnostics and atheists and Zionists! BUT the Lord reserves the right of vengeance for those who rebel against Him and violate His commandments without the benefit of Christ’s Forgiveness. He said: “Vengeance is Mine. I will recompense.” There is no doubt that His vengeance is to be avoided at all cost! How about this line: “Is is a fearsome thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (especially if you denied that He exists, in spite of the evidence all around us)

For more information about who the Lord helps, read “The Life” on my website wink

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment

I say let them rot in jail for their crimes rather than live out the rest of their lives in splendor. Remember the Lord helps those who help themselves.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

The more I think about Impeachment of Bush, the more I think Bush should eat a lot of pretzels - and we won’t have to worry about Impeachment. For those of you who have visited my website, you know that I believe Bush will meet with a highly unpleasant Act of Divine Intervention. The plans of mice and men are soon forgotten but an Act of God is not soon forgotten! wink “The Word of God is living and powerful”!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

In fairness to Gravel I had forgotten the fact he is a former senator. Sorry mike!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

This article provides even further information. apparently even Gravel did not support the Kucinich bill although he claims to support impeachment for both Bush and Cheney. Apparently Dennis, along with the majority of Americans stands alone when it comes to the impeachment of Cheney!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

86309 The only other candidate thus far who supports impeachment beyond Kucinich is Gravel.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

So far as impeachment, all I’m seeing about Paul is he stands with house speaker Pelosi. That means impeachment’s off the table. Makes Dennis look far better.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

86300 According to this blog, Paul does not support impeachment. He does support further investigations. He also opposes a war with Iran and dismantle the FED. There seems to be a pretty big buzz going on over Paul and Kucinich. That’s a good thing. I plan on investigating this further and if I come up with anything I’ll post it.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

86249 I stand corrected. You know what, I think this might not be true. The digg stated this was an experiment. I know that Libertarians for Ron Paul are calling for impeachment but this link I provided shows no proof that Paul supports impeachment.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

86276 As far as I know Ernest, Paul is in support of it.

This makes me think he and Kucinich would make a good team.

Report this

By cann4ing, July 12, 2007 at 11:05 am Link to this comment

To GodSend and Michael Shaw:  Can either of you tell me what Ron Paul’s position is on the articles of impeachment which Mr. Kucinich has brought against Dick Cheney?

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 12, 2007 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

Good point Godsend. The truth is we would all be far better off with either Paul or Kucinich in the white house. Either of those guys would be a step in the right direction.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 11, 2007 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment

You make some good points about Kucinich, MS. I’ll do some more homework on him and Ron Paul before making up my mind. There’s still plenty of time before the next election - if there IS an election! wink

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 11, 2007 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

86113 Well Marshall let’s just leave it at that then. Obviously this was some kind of misunderstanding. For the sake of this board, there’s no point in rehashing it again.

Report this

By cann4ing, July 11, 2007 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment

You didn’t respond Marshall because you have never served in combat.  You advocate war from afar.  That makes you a chicken hawk—a coward.  Prove me wrong.

Report this

By Marshall, July 11, 2007 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment

#85915 by Michael Shaw on 7/11 at 8:21 am

<<I also saw a post from Ernest to you in which you in fact had not responded to him! Not vice versa!>>

As soon as he began calling me names, I decided not to respond to him - it’s a general policy of mine regarding ad hominem attacks.

<<What does my pacifism have to do with the commute of Libby’s sentence and more importantly what do my personal beliefs have to do with them? >>

Nothing - this happens to be the thread where I read your post that mentioned your pacifism, so I chose to ask you about it here.

<<I believe you had in fact gone out of your way to find a flaw in my conversation as to discredit me and saw my pacifism as a weakness.>>

If I’d wanted to discredit you, I’d have attempted to do so.  I’m sorry you feel that way.

<<And why would Ernest Canning, a man I have come to respect, say this to you if you had not made a previous comment:>>

Perhaps this illustrates my earlier point about excusing bad behavior by blaming it on someone besides the person who commits it.  My conversation was with you, not Ernest, and I can’t speak to his motivations.

<<Certainly this did not come from your questioning me about my pacifism but rather from another post you made elsewhere in rebuttal to my explanation.>>

I’ve made no posts elsewhere regarding your explanation, Michael.

<<frankly, I don’t trust anyone who comments about me behind my back and invites others to do the same.>>

Michael - I made no comment about you behind your back nor did I invite anyone else to.  I responded to Ernest about his attack on my questions to you - questions which just yesterday you had no problem with and about which I thought we were having a thoughtful and respectful exchange.  For some reason you appear to have changed your mind about this.  This is all getting a little too complicated for me I have to say.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 11, 2007 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

86092 Point taken Ernest. In my mind all I was considering was that these guys would actually get a public voice and debate on the real issues that are the most important to us.

As you know the presidential debates have been askew since the league of women voters washed their hands of it. The current version is nothing more than windowdressing where the candidates decide collectively what can and cannot be asked of them. The top runners are more concerned about the lighting and protecting their image.

I do see you point however and even a sheer joy in it. Just imagine Dennis and the others as they tear apart their corporate stooge counterparts! I would love to see Amy Goodman and Bill Moyers involved but you know as I do the RNC and the DNC will never allow it!

Report this

By cann4ing, July 11, 2007 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment

Patrick & Michael, while Gravel, Kucinich, Nader and Paul are a delight, lining them up together for a debate wouldn’t provoke all that much in the way of a disagreement.  If we really wanted to make it interesting, we could have a serious of debates where, in each, one of the corporatists—Clinton, McCain, Guiliani et al., would be made to sit at the far right, so as to provide a good foil.  We could have people like Amy Goodman and Bill Moyers as the moderators—you know someone who would ask real “hard” questions.  Without the advantage in numbers always given to the corporate charletons and pressed to respond to the substance of what genuine candidates who are prepared to speak truth to power have to say, it would be reminiscent to exposing an emperor who has no clothes.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 11, 2007 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

85970 I would like to add Godsend, I am a big fan of Paul Wellstone and also his protege Russ Feingold.

As for Dennis Kucinich, he accepts no funding from any corporate lobby groups, including AIPAC. He only receives funding from average citizens like you and me.
Why don’t you visit his site:

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 11, 2007 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

86030 Well Patrick, we already know where that information came from.

I also agree with your debate line-up. If it ever comes to light, it will be the best thing to happen in this country since apple pie and the BLT!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 11, 2007 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment

Kucinich, Paul, Gravel and Nader, I bet if they got together for a debate on the issues, it would truely truely take the wind out of the sails of the mainstream Democrat and Republican candidates.

Back to Amy Goodmans article:

How did these political hacks discover Plames identity?  Someone with access to this info at the CIA had to offer it up.  Agents identities are not the day to day talk in a political landscape, platforms, programs and operations yes, but an undercover operatives name  This info is usually “sanitized” even at the highest levels.

The old motto was “the truth will set you free”

The new reality is not telling the truth will set you free.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 11, 2007 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

85970 I respect your opinion Godsend but I would like you to go back to my last post with cyrena. 85929

Americans vote for candidates for all the wrong reasons. It’s a horse race and all bets go to the one who collects the most corporate money. I think you’ll agree that how tough or charismatic a candidate appears to an audience isn’t a free pass to good leadership either. Look at Bush, at Clinton! For God’s sake look at all of them! They all use the same tough, charismatic jive! It could be argued that Hitler’s greatest asset was his charisma. The fact is most politicians are far better at getting elected and staying in office then they ever were in regard to actual governing. (Thank you Ralph Nader!)

Who in the entire lot is in fact truly charismatic? Hilary? Obama? Ron Paul? Gulliani? I don’t see it though some could argue that point. But the truth is they all accepted PAC funding(except Kucinich) and for the most part supported the war in Iraq from the beginning until the tide of popular indifference arrived, then they flip-flopped and turned the corner right along with majority opinion. Beyond Kucinich, none of them stood up and aired the wrongs in going into this contrived war. No one had the courage except Dennis. They were more than happy to be a part of the status quo, including Ron Paul. That my friend does not denote courage. In fact and excluding Kucinich, I would describe all of their collective reactions as wimpy.

It could be argued Hilary commands an audience more diligently than Kucinich or perhaps any of the other candidates but she, along with the rest are getting all the air time. When was the last time you saw Kucinich make a speech on national TV or for that matter anywhere? Never because all the special interest money, the same money that comes from corporate media, doesn’t go to him. Beyond their constant remarks that he’s a wimp and doesn’t stand a chance, he is completely and intentionally overlooked. He frightens them because he in fact challenges them and that is the kind of leadership we need.

Paul on the other hand gets most of his funding from major corporations. Though he too is somewhat overlooked, he won’t disclose the rest of his campaign finances. Kucinich on the other hand, has fully disclosed his campaign finance, unlike any of the other candidates.

He might not be superman but he is the only guy out there who is honest, open and real. I’d take that over rehearsed charisma in front of an audience or camera any day of the week.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 11, 2007 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment


You may be right about the Kucinich platform. It’s just that he doesn’t have a lot of charisma and fails to project power. America needs a fire-and brimstone leader - someone who can rally people to action and speak to power without reticence or fear! A JFK type. A Paul Wellstone type. Even a Lawrence of Arabia type wink What stance has Kucinich taken on Zionism? Just being anti-war and anti-Bush isn’t good enough! The roots of Evil must be understood and struck without hesitation or reservation - even if they extend to the Democratic party (and they DO!)

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 11, 2007 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

85907 IE Dennis Kucinich is a wimp. The only guy to have the courage to take a stand against the illegal war in Iraq and the only guy in the election who will not accept PAC money and you call him a wimp! The reasons he in fact has been denoted as such is because of the entrenched powers that be, the very powers you claim must be removed.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 11, 2007 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

#85836 by cyrena Here here cyrena. Every president this nation ever had coming out of Texas has been a travesty(Not that California has faired any better).

I’d also like to add that it seems people vote for candidates for all the wrong reasons. Instead of researching their platforms,investigating their stances or looking into who is financing them, they go for the superficialities that are meaningless.

For added thought:

The men American people admire most extravagantly
are the most daring liars; the men they detest  
most violently are those who try and tell them the

- H. L. Mencken

The most dangerous man to any government is the  
man who is able to think things out…without  
regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.
Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that
the government he lives under is dishonest,   
insane, intolerable.                   

- H. L. Mencken

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 11, 2007 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

85831 Marshall, Ernest never accused you of baiting me. In fact I had written a post to him suggesting that you had because of what I read previously(85439) and because of the rather direct questioning about my personal life. As a result of this, I was under the impression you posted a comment that was in fact removed from the board. I also saw a post from you asking Ernest to join you in another string to talk about me. The only thing I saw Ernest do was come to my defense over an apparent post you made earlier(or somewhere else) in response to my pacifism, perhaps one that was not as civil as the one I saw. I also saw a post from Ernest to you in which you in fact had not responded to him! Not vice versa!

#85494 by Ernest Canning on 7/09 at 8:08 pm
(583 comments total)

Since you did not answer my question, I am going to assume that my suspicians are right.  From now on, I will respond to your posts as CHM (Chicken Hawk Marshall).

Frankly and with all due respect, I see you as trolling this dig with one thing in mind, to shortcut the topic and put me or anyone else that has something legitimate to say on trial. What does my pacifism have to do with the commute of Libby’s sentence and more importantly what do my personal beliefs have to do with them? Why should I in fact be interrogated by you or anyone else when those who sit in Washington, the very guys you support are the real ones who need interrogating?

I believe you had in fact gone out of your way to find a flaw in my conversation as to discredit me and saw my pacifism as a weakness. Perhaps I’m wrong but your intent seems obvious. I’ve also read some of your posts elsewhere. In other words, I’ve already seen you and your witty, cold blooded and calculated charm in action.

And why would Ernest Canning, a man I have come to respect, say this to you if you had not made a previous comment:

“So before you start running your mouth about Mr. Shaw’s principled pacifism, perhaps you can let us in on just what your experience has been.  Otherwise, your comments on this subject, like the rest of your right-wing tripe will be regarded for what it is—worthless!”

Certainly this did not come from your questioning me about my pacifism but rather from another post you made elsewhere in rebuttal to my explanation. Either that or the fact that Ernest knows you all to well!

I respect Ernest Canning and I know enough about him to realize he would never have taken me through this Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole you have. And frankly, I don’t trust anyone who comments about me behind my back and invites others to do the same.

#85477 by Marshall on 7/09 at 7:11 pm
(91 comments total)

#85439 by Ernest Canning on 7/09 at 5:13 pm

Actually Ernest, while you’re welcome to review my conversation with Michael, I’d really prefer that you respond to my post #85245 to you on another thread.

Civil or not, I’ve lost all faith in you Marshall and would add the only cherry picking going on in here is coming from you!

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 11, 2007 at 8:46 am Link to this comment


Whose time are you trying to save? Everyone here has time to spare (relatively speaking) or they wouldn’t be here wink

The point of my post about Oprah and Ron Paul is that ANY candidate who is independent of the Israel Lobby is better than ANY candidate who is in the Zionists’ pocket - just about everyone else. If Reagan and Terminator can be elected to high office with just about ZERO qualifications, why shouldn’t Oprah?! Most women just LOVE her and her independence (financial and otherwise).

What I like about Ron Paul is his stance against the Fed. It needs to be eliminated - just like Zionism.

Kucinich is a wimp - and that just won’t do for the next president, who has to get rid of the deadly Zionist infestation (terminal cancer is a better analogy) - if there is a next president. That’s a very serious possibility! We’re more likely to get a dictator next! Maybe the same one we already have wink

My best estimate about the next president is clearly stated on my website - along with some other ‘interesting’ best estimates wink WARNING! - it’s scary stuff, not suitable for the weak-kneed!

Report this

By cyrena, July 11, 2007 at 1:52 am Link to this comment

#85121 by GodSend on 7/08 at 1:08 pm

GodSend, did you writethis just to get me revved-up? Especially the LAST part? About OPRAH?

•  What Ron Paul brings to the table is independence of the Israel Lobby (as far as I know, at this stage of the game). Now that’s harder to find in a viable presidential candidate than hen’s teeth.

It’s a matter of the least of possible evils.

Of course, Oprah might surprise us all! She would win, hands down!
It’s OK. I know you didn’t mean to give me a heart attack, but PLEASE don’t put these thoughts in folks’ heads. (about Oprah). There is no way that any of us could survive whatever parallel universe it is that Oprah lives in, with all of her alternative realities. Oprah is as dangerous in her own way as george is. No.

As for Ron Paul, I can only say that desperate times call for desperate measures, and Ron Paul already has too many fundamental strikes against him, beginning with the fact that he’s from Texas. Unfortunately, that has to eliminate him from the competition, even if he’s a democrat. Texas politicians don’t have any independence, no matter what their party affiliation is.

Otherwise, he’s probably a good enough dude. Doesn’t matter though. Anybody from Texas should just automatically sit out the next several elections.

Just to save time.

Report this

By Marshall, July 11, 2007 at 12:47 am Link to this comment

#85591 by Michael Shaw on 7/10 at 9:16 am

Michael - my civility was in response to your civil reply to my questions.  I’m not sure about the uproar you referred to; I’m guessing it was simply Ernest’s ad hominem comments, accusing me of baiting you (and he still hasn’t responded to my post #85245 on another story).  No matter - my questions were genuine and you replied in kind.  I suspected you were a veteran from your post, but wasn’t entirely sure and it didn’t influence my response.  Vets have just as wide a range of opinions as anyone and I disagree with some and agree with others.

As to the timeline; I’m afraid I find that timelines are one of the easiest ways to present agendas disguised as fact.  The one you posted pretty clearly cherry picks the data, omitting important or contrary information and presenting opinion as fact, to cast the US in as bad a light as possible.  A review of its primary sources further confirms the author’s bias (see the many Cockburns).  You asked, so I’m giving you my honest opinion of the timeline - I hope you don’t take it as a personal attack.

You and I obviusly disagree on the origins of fanaticism.  I believe that fanatics often blame others for their tactics - much like cults and extremist groups in every country usually blame their country for their extremism, thus finding justification for their behavior, no matter how henious.  I don’t deny that the history of US actions in the ME has produced blowback, as I said before.  But I also don’t buy this “dirty hands” argument as justification for AQ, 9/11, etc…

Thanks again for your reply.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 10, 2007 at 11:15 am Link to this comment


I’d like to add Marshall that the United States not only grew fanatical Islamic Fundamentalism, they actually helped to reinvent it. To truly understand why a 9/11 took place we need to look at our involvements in Middle Eastern affairs. This time line will give you an idea. It doesn’t include the current war in Iraq or president Bush’s “crusade” remarks. But frankly it doesn’t have to. Fanatics don’t simply climb out of the floorboards, they are created.

Middle East Time Line

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 10, 2007 at 10:16 am Link to this comment

85522 Well Marshall I’m frankly quite surprised by your reply. As a man you asked me some questions and as a man I tried to answer them as honestly and forthcoming as possible. I don’t know what the uproar was in your previous reply since frankly I didn’t get a chance to read it. Whatever the case, your current post is a civil one and I accept it with gratitude. One thing interests me however. I’m wondering if you would have given me the same respect if in fact I was not a vet?

Report this

By Marshall, July 9, 2007 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

#85361 by Michael Shaw on 7/09 at 12:09 pm

Thanks for your reply Michael - I can see that there’s a spectrum of beliefs within the “pacifist” category and it sounds like you lean more towards a sortof “moderate pacifism” which doesn’t preclude the use of violence, but would prevent you from participating directly unless perhaps you were personally threatened.  It sounds like you served in combat, which I have not, and perhaps that inluenced your perspective.  Of course many who also have served didn’t become pacifists (the majority I’m sure), but we each react to our own experiences differently.

The fact that you applauded our efforts in WWII indicates to me that you probably agree with me that there are certain global entities that cannot be negotiated with - Hitler being an obvious one.  I would think this point is a crucial distinction between “moderate” and more “extreme” (for lack of a better term) pacifism.

I think you and I differ on the US role in instigating global terror.  Certainly, blowback is a phenomenon, but I don’t blame the US for the actions of Islamic terrorists abroad.  It’s real-politik that friends become foes and foes become friends in the fluid global dynamics of shifting interests and alliances.  No country the size of the US will avoid making enemies - and some will choose to blame their actions on other countries like the US, rather than face up to their own failings.  I believe we see this in the ME in economies flush with oil money but bereft of productive global contributions and mired in economic decay.

It’s also interesting that the real instigators of terror against the west - both in the planning and execution - are not the economic “have nots” but are mostly intelligent, well educated, and well off; a testament to the ideological nature of their cause.  An ideology, I believe, that isn’t born of western foreign policy, but of deep conviction and hatred of governments (and people) who don’t share their ideology.  This is why the original targets were (and still are) regional secular regimes and ideologically different religious regimes.

I believe that warfare will be a fact of life for the forseeable future because there will always be conflict between belief systems.  For example, I don’t dismiss Iran’s rejection of an Israeli state, or Al Qaeda’s stated intention to establish a global Islamic state as mere rhetoric.  As long as there are groups with goals like these, there will be warfare.

I am sorry to hear about your friend who died in 9/11.  I’m sure that was difficult, especially given the horific circumstances.

Thanks for your reply - it has added insight into some questions I’ve never had the chance to ask anyone before.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 9, 2007 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment

85493 Yes Ernest I like Barbara Boxer. I don’t agree with everything she does but for the most part she is one of the few democrats who is willing to fight the good fight.

Report this

By cann4ing, July 9, 2007 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

Since you did not answer my question, I am going to assume that my suspicians are right.  From now on, I will respond to your posts as CHM (Chicken Hawk Marshall).

Report this

By cann4ing, July 9, 2007 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

Your right, Michael.  It was Pelosi.  Actually, Boxer is the one California Senator with the guts to take on this adminstration, early on.  Mea Culpa for getting it wrong.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 9, 2007 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment

85396 Absolutely Patrick! It is the duty of congress to honor it’s mandate to defend the US Constitution!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 9, 2007 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment

85477 What’s the matter Marshall are you afraid of having an opened, honest debate? If you’re going to talk about me I’d prefer you do it to my face!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 9, 2007 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

85434 Hey Ernest, I heard it was Pelosi that Sheehan was going to run against, not Boxer. That’s what I thought I heard on the news last night. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Actually Boxer isn’t all that bad but Feinstein sure needs to go. As for Sheehan, if she runs against Pelosi she’ll get my vote and of course I would love to see Dennis get the support he truly deserves. Even Nader likes him!

By the way, I appreciate you coming to my defense concerning Marshall. I had a feeling he was baiting me though I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I didn’t see his reply in here concerning my post so I can only imagine. Thanks to you and Patrick Henry. I appreciate you guys!

Report this

By Marshall, July 9, 2007 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment

#85439 by Ernest Canning on 7/09 at 5:13 pm

Actually Ernest, while you’re welcome to review my conversation with Michael, I’d really prefer that you respond to my post #85245 to you on another thread.

Report this

By cann4ing, July 9, 2007 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

Marshall, your comments suggest that you are a typical chicken-hawk who has never been in combat.  Before you ask, I will tell you—I have.  I spent the better part of 1968 in Viet Nam’s Central Highlands.  War sucks!
Getting shot at is scary as hell.  Watching a friend die is worse.  It’s not a video game.  Even television can’t convey the fear or the smell.

So before you start running your mouth about Mr. Shaw’s principled pacifism, perhaps you can let us in on just what your experience has been.  Otherwise, your comments on this subject, like the rest of your right-wing tripe will be regarded for what it is—worthless!

Report this

By cann4ing, July 9, 2007 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

PatrickHenry, it might interest you to know that Cindy Sheehan has given Barbara Boxer until July 23 to put impeachment “on-the-table.”  If Boxer fails to meet the deadline, Sheehan plans to move to Boxer’s district and to run against her as an independent.  A great strategy but a better one yet would be for the American public to flock to the Kucinich campaign in droves.  Now that would put a scare in these corporate sell-out Democrats!

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 9, 2007 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment

Lest anyone forget, the ‘War on Terror’ is a fabrication of Zionism and targeted at turning America into a Fascist Police State (we’re almost there - as soon as 9/11-II arrives). When Bush said to Olmert “America will defend Israel with all its blood and treasure” (or was it Olmert who said that to Bush? wink ) it became clear who is steering the Titanic!

Further, terrorism is a Zionism/MIC strategy to conduct endless war and generate endless profits for MIC members. It’s worked great for Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and some others so far! It’s also aimed at destabilizing the ME (known as ‘Balkanization of the Middle East’). Last but not least, it’s a plan to create a ‘Clash of civilizations’ between the West and Islam - with Israel as the primary beneficiary in its pursuit of a ‘Greater Israel’ and the NWO! Killing and traumatizing a large percentage of the Palestinians (especially Hamas) is just gravy).

Did I mention control of the oil?

So who did 9/11, which was the ‘official’ kickoff of the Zionist PNAC - the ‘New Pearl Harbor’? It should be self-evident to anyone able to put 1 and 1 together and come up with 2! Can so many Americans be THAT bad with elementary math??? The 9/11 ‘Truth Movement’ is not much more than teaching Americans that 1+1=2 but the MSM refuses to convey the lesson!

Denial or collusion or deception (or all of them) make a lot more sense than bad math wink MSM stonewalling of the truth also seems to be working - maybe for now, but not for much longer!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 9, 2007 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment

Michael Shaw…excellent post.

The 08’ elections are around the corner, we voters should push the impeachment and/or prosecution of many in the current administration as prerequisite for a candidates election or re-election to those public offices our votes affect.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 9, 2007 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

85257 Marshall, I don’t mind answering you at all.

First of all I have been a pacifist since the Vietnam war. I do not believe in killing anyone under any circumstances. I also oppose the death penalty.

Though I realize the necessity for a military and in fact applauded our efforts in WW2, if it meant my only contribution to victory over fascism was killing someone I would have respectively declined. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have helped the war effort in some other capacity as millions of Americans had back then. But we’re both talking in supposition here, about a lot of “what ifs” and under any certain defined circumstance, frankly I’m not sure how I might react. Like you I am only human. That said, I prefer peace to violence.

As for 9/11 and going after the Taliban, an entity our own government in fact created and empowered, I’d be doing the same thing I’ve been doing since the illegal, preemptive invasion of Iraq. Speaking out against this war that in fact is more so aimed at our own liberty and wellbeing than any invisible enemy, an enemy in fact created and enacted by our own maliced, greedy actions abroad. To me the war on terror is the exact opposite of the war on fascism and there is absolutely no viable comparison.

I lost an old school chum in the towers on 9/11, Timmy Hughes. We went to grammar school together and were friends. My nephew was working across the East River in Jersey and witnessed the horror in real time. I do not take the attacks on 9/11 lightly!

However, I believe diplomacy and international cooperation is the greatest tool in fighting terrorism. I also believe that greed, indifference and preemption based in false intelligence are the very things that created a 9/11 in the first place and has since left us feared, hated and despised by most of the world. Clearly we must redefine our international goals accordingly and get to the root of the real reasons we face attacks and enact warfare. Our corporate exploitations abroad and at home are the bulwark to all our major problems. Artificial entities neither breathe, vote or fight in wars, yet they are the catalyst to most of the pain, famine, death and destruction that currently thrives on this planet.

Actually I never claimed not paying taxes in protest to be illegitimate. It was a hypothetical question. But to give you an answer, my “claim” was more so that it was in fact unrealistic and preposterous! First off, you know as I do it will never happen. I’d like to add that much of our tax dollars go into other important things in our society beyond warfare and tax breaks to the rich and such a revolt would be more harmful to Medicare and Medicaid recipients and retirees on set incomes than it would to our government and the corporations who own it. We would get much farther by simply not buying gas and refusing to work for a week.

Hope this satisfies your curiosity. I would be interested in hearing your stand on these topics also.

Report this

By Marshall, July 9, 2007 at 1:53 am Link to this comment

#84707 by Michael Shaw on 7/06 at 9:48 pm

Michael - I’ve yet to have a discussion with a self-proclaimed pacifist and I do have questions which perhaps you can answer.

Does a pacifist believe in remaining passive even if attacked?  How would you have handled Germany in WWII?  How about the Taliban after 9/11?  Do you support maintaining a military at all?  And in your post, you protest to another poster that refusing to pay taxes and going to jail is not a legitimate action.  By the same token, wouldn’t refusing to fight an attacker and thus being subjugated also not be legitimate?

These are honest questions and forgive me if I’ve assumed any positions that you don’t actually take.

Report this

By cann4ing, July 8, 2007 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment

Frank Cajon writes, “If only Obama or even Edwards had the balls to take on Cheney…”  Frank, they don’t and won’t.  Let’s not forget that both men showed their cowardice during the first debate when they stood like mute statues, unwilling even to raise a hand in support of impeachment and the U.S. Constitution.  Edwards voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.  Yeah, he has since admitted that he made a mistake.

At the AFSME forum, Kucinich’s response was, “It must be tough for a candidate to come before the American people and say that they were tricked, deceived, fooled….by George W. Bush?”  The fact is that both men knew the administration had failed to make the case to take this nation to war.  One voted against it.  The other, a typical poll-driven, corporate sponsored Democrat was more worried about the prospect of Democrats appearing “soft” on the so-called “war on terror” than meeting his Constitutionally imposed responsibility of assuring that the President does not, unnecessarily, place our young men and women in harm’s way.  The plan backfired.  The Rovians launched an all out assault against all things Democrat in the 2002 election, even painting a tripple amputee Vietnam vet as a coward and the Senate shifted to the Republi-crook-fascists.

As to Obama, while he was not in the Senate in 2002, once he joined it, he voted for every war funding bill until this last one.  He stated that the Dems did not have the votes in the Senate to end the war.  That was a lie!  All it takes is 41 votes to block funding.  They had the votes but lacked the courage.

There is only one candidate who stands with the American people.  One candidate who could care less about image if it is at odds with substance. One candidate who has proposed taking on the consolidation of corporate control over the media and restoring the Fairness Doctrine—the precise reason the media seeks first to ignore him, alternatively seeking to ridicule him if he must be mentioned at all.  His name is Dennis Kucinich.  All the rest are corporatist charletons.

Time to wake up America and smell the brown sticky substance that the propaganda network, aka the conglomerated corporate media, has been shoveling over the airwaves.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 8, 2007 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

85225. Thanks Frank and thanks for pointing out how Stewart and others, including Letterman and Leno go out of their way to make him look bad. No small cry since they too represent members of the established hierarchy rather than the average citizen.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 8, 2007 at 9:25 pm Link to this comment

85171 Here! Here!

Well Ernest you know he has to be the best, everyone on the right hates him, the conservative elements of the democratic party can’t stand him and every major corporation in the nation goes out of their way to make a buffoon of him with the help of major media.

Dennis Kucinich is exactly the guy we need! They fear him, they despise him, they hate him. He’s the perfect guy for the job!

They have a lot of nerve calling him antiquated because he supports the New Deal. Hell! They’ve taken us back even farther to the McKinley era! What’s next, the Edwardian era? Perhaps serfdom?! The New Deal was way ahead of its time. What we’ve got now is as old as the horse drawn carriage and the same mistakes we allowed just prior to 1929 are back a thousand fold!

It’s time for universal health care. We’re the only modern industrial society without it. It’s time to re-defend our own economy as every other nation does and it’s time to re-regulate the hell out of major corporations and tear down monopolies as the constitution intended and deregulate the little guy entrepreneur who provides actual competition and innovation! Job outsourcing should be made illegal and corporate taxes should be universal across the nation rather than varying from state to state.

US corporations now overseas should suffer major import taxes and get rewarded only when they bring back factories and employment to this country. It’s time to raise the minimum wage to a livable level and to create affordable housing for all. To enable a free education to anyone who can’t afford one! To bring back the fairness doctrine and bust up media consolidation. To end our addiction to oil by creating a whole new industry to solarize this entire country and rebuild our entire transit system.

No one in the pack is as capable or willing to do this as Dennis Kucinich. The handful of greedy bastards who own and control every aspect of our lives and society would finally have their teeth pulled and would have to play by rules our constitution dictates rather than their own! This long running oligarchical facade must come to an end.

The only guy who can do it is Dennis Kucinich!

Report this

By Frank Cajon, July 8, 2007 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

85164 Michael Shaw nailed it. Cheney has to be removed before any articles or trial against Bush will have any meaning whatsoever and Kucinich is the only Demo willing to go after Dr Strangelove. It is too bad that Kucinich is seen as a punch line of so many idealist loser jokes on the hipster shows like John Stewart and Bill Maher, who feed off the popular perception that he is a throwback also-ran who always runs and never gets any corporate money-or Democratic delegates. If only Obama or even Edwards had the balls to take on Cheney as boldly, he may find others willing to follow someone with a higher profile.

Report this

By cann4ing, July 8, 2007 at 4:21 pm Link to this comment

Michael Shaw, I not only wholeheartedly concur with your latest post but I would take it a step forward.  On issue-after-issue, Dennis Kucinich has proven that he is the “only” candidate running for president who directly represents the interests of the vast majority of the electorate, the middle and working classes.  Michael Moore has noted that Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who “gets it” on health care.  Kucinich is a co-sponsor of HR 676 which calls for that which Sicko! prescribes, the elimination of for-profit health care insurers and HMOs, which currently make up 31% of the spiraling health care costs in this country, and replacing them with a single-payer system.  Kucinich is the “only” candidate for president who calls for a repeal of NAFTA and the WTO, which have served as the tools that have enabled a betrayal of this nation by our economic elites, who have outsourced our manufacturing base in an incessant search for ever-cheaper labor, as the remants of American labor has been left to be increasingly Wal-Mart-ized.

When asked at the first Democratic Presidential debate who would stand with Dennis Kucinich in calling for the impeachment of the Vice President, every other candidate, including Sen. Gravel, stood moot, like a frozen statute.  Only Dennis Kucinich had the courage and wisdom to pull out a small pamphlet that underscores what is at stake—the United States Constitution, a documentthat is in danger of becoming an historical footnote unless the so-called Democratic Leadership in Congress awakes to the gravity and scope of the danger, and right soon!

I would encourage every American to abondon the immature method of supporting only those candidates whom the corporate media tell us are “electable.”  We should be voting not upon whom we are told is the “leading” candidate, but based upon where candidates stand on issues tha truly matter.  This is the only method by which power can be restored to its rightful owner, the American People.

Go to

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 8, 2007 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

85121 Well Godsend I’ll admit Ron Paul has the most moderate voice coming from the republican side but frankly he supports small government and although that is not necessarily a bad thing, especially in light of Bush and the biggest big government in US history, it will take some other form of big government to help the general population get back on it’s feet, just as Roosevelt had done via the social agenda he established to save us from disaster in the 1930’s. Small government works fine in a strong economy but our economic at this point is the weakest it’s been since 1929.

The fact Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance in hell anyway mutes the point. He also accepts PAC money for his campaign finances. The only good thing I see is if he choses to run independently he’ll steal a large percentage of Libertarian votes which won’t do the republicans any good. Frankly I hope he does.

Personally I see Dennis Kucinich as the only practical choice since he is the only candidate who did not support the war in Iraq and in fact was the first of all the candidates to openly oppose it. He is the closest thing to Roosevelt we are ever going to get. The fact that corporate America can’t stand him also lends credence to this as well as your lobby argument. He accepts no PAC funds.

Courtesy of the New York Observer

Of all the Presidential contenders ferreting around for campaign cash, there is at least one who has not hopped on board New York’s money circuit. Dennis Kucinich, the long-shot pacifist Congressman from Ohio, has made a point of not dealing with bundlers at all.

“Dennis is not going to be involved with bundlers,” said Sharon Jimenez, a campaign spokeswoman. “Dennis wants to raise $50 million, but he wants to do it through having a million people give him $50.”

Sadly like Paul, Kucinich doesn’t stand a chance either. But by far he is the best overall candidate.

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 8, 2007 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

What Ron Paul brings to the table is independence of the Israel Lobby (as far as I know, at this stage of the game). Now that’s harder to find in a viable presidential candidate than hen’s teeth.

It’s a matter of the least of possible evils.

Of course, Oprah might surprise us all! She would win, hands down!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 8, 2007 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment

Ernest you know another aspect I’ve been thinking about is the so called 2/3’s majority vote. It seems to me this makes it so difficult to affect change in legislation it almost mutes the point. Wouldn’t we get a whole lot more done with a simple majority vote in the congress? I realize it could work for both the bad and the good. But surely a basic majority vote is more practical than a 2/3’rds vote where nothing seems to ever get done and nothing is ever effective changed. Your thoughts?

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 8, 2007 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

P.S.85095 I forgot to add the invasion of Panama!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 8, 2007 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

85051. Vote for Ron Paul? The same guy who claims the republicans are and have always been a peace loving anti-war party? Apparently he forgot it’s origins, in fact stemming in a war that came to be the biggest conflict in US history and costing more than 500,000 American lives. He must has also forgotten about Nixon’s escalation of the Vietnam War when he invaded Laos and Cambodia. Or how about Reagan and Grenada and the funding of the Contras or Bush 1 and Desert Storm!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 8, 2007 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

84957 Cyrena you actually put it better than I did! I appreciate your rationale.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 8, 2007 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

Godsend, Ernest Canning is correct! “In God we Trust” didn’t occur until the civil war because the treasury secretary under Lincoln was a religious zealot. The original motto was “E Pluribus Unum.” Roughly translated as “From Many Comes One” or “Out of Many, One.” Other mottos included “Annuit Coeptis” or “Smile Upon Beginnings” and “Novus Ordo Seclorum” or “New Order of the Ages.” ...and no it does not mean new world order but rather it refers to the new American Era!

E Pluribus Unum was first used on US coinage in 1795. Teddy Roosevelt actually removed the “In God” Motto when he was president because he felt it conflicted with the separation of church and state clause in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. A unique aspect of this is can be found in the 1908 $20.00 gold piece that had versions with both the “In God” motto and no motto. Another reflection comes from the Pledge of Allegiance where one nation “under God” wasn’t added until the 1950’s during the McCarthy era. The reason? Because we were at odds with the “godless” Soviets. Actually the “In God We Trust” motto didn’t become the official national motto until 1956 by an act of congress.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 8, 2007 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

85058 Hey Ernest, since you’re a lawyer I thought if anywhere I could get an answer from you. I read in another post that technically Libby is still not off the hook, that in fact congress could reopen an investigation and supoena Libby to a congressional grand jury. If he takes the 5th as the commute allows him he can be jailed indefinitely for contempt until he spills the beans. Does constitutional law allow us to go this route?

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 8, 2007 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

PS Who ARE those people - dancing around that Golden Calf?

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 8, 2007 at 11:18 am Link to this comment


Now whose idea was that, do you suppose?

Report this

By cann4ing, July 8, 2007 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

GodSend, the motto has been modified.  “In God we trust.  All others pay cash.”

Report this
GodSend's avatar

By GodSend, July 8, 2007 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

Just wait a sec, here, isn’t America’s Motto: “In GOD we trust”?!

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook