The Reagans

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592216.shtml

No Slogan Left Behind

"After making war not peace in 2003, our president is taking advantage of the New Year and Democratic fratricide to dress up in his compassionate conservative costume again. First it was kindler, gentler immigration reforms, then an anniversary party for his favorite bill-that-became-a-law, the No Child Left Behind education program.

The NCLB (I can't use the whole, silly slogan again, I'm sorry) celebration is an especially ironic affair, and not just for the president. Bush is trying to collect the political capital from NCLB just as many states and school systems are rebelling because they don't have the real capital (or the desire) to comply with the burdensome law...

When NCLB passed, schools were told they would get some more federal dollars to help comply. But the program has not been close to fully funded, as the president essentially admitted on anniversary day when he said he fund boost his 2005 budget request by about $2.1 billion, which critics will say isn't nearly enough.

NCLB has become a dreaded "unfunded mandate" as they call it in political science seminars.

And increasingly, schools and states are looking for ways to tell the feds to take their unfunded mandates and stick them up their appropriations committees. A few schools and school districts in Vermont and Connecticut have already told the federal government to keep its money, they're not going to comply with NCLB. Some schools in Virginia are debating doing the same."

[strandinthewind]

Good Lord - did you spend all of last night doing research

Personally, I get the whole "we need to feed our people not explore space idea," but I just do not agree with it on many levels. First, that task will create thousands of jobs. Second, history demonstrates it will unite people. Finally, its just cool to a techie like me

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Good Lord - did you spend all of last night doing research

Personally, I get the whole "we need to feed our people not explore space idea," but I just do not agree with it on many levels. First, that task will create thousands of jobs. Second, history demonstrates it will unite people. Finally, its just cool to a techie like me

Since some of you wanted to bring the Bush thing into the present I posted what I read from various news sources today. I can't imagine what I'd come up with if I spent 24 hours loooking.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Since some of you wanted to bring the Bush thing into the present I posted what I read from various news sources today. I can't imagine what I'd come up with if I spent 24 hours loooking.

I am glad you did and thanks for the due dilligence These are the types of things I think the D (Democrat - Dean )will have to concentrate on to beat W. These are the "real" issues to me. I think if they get mired down in the stuff I deem as trivial, the D will lose whatever shot he had.

But, the mudslinging on this tripe will never end. In fact, go here to see an article from Fox News spinning Dean's perfectly legal activities into an article that suggests what he did was wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107942,00.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am glad you did and thanks for the due dilligence These are the types of things I think the D (Democrat - Dean )will have to concentrate on to beat W. These are the "real" issues to me. I think if they get mired down in the stuff I deem as trivial, the D will lose whatever shot he had.

I don't think Dean is going to be the nominee. I think Wesley Clark is. I think Dean has peaked.



Also, it looks as though Ralph Nader is going to run again.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I don't think Dean is going to be the nominee. I think Wesley Clark is. I think Dean has peaked.

Time will tell. Personally, I think Clark would be a better candidate because he can shine on foreign affairs experience and he is seemingly well liked. Dean's strongsuit is he is controversial and he had a wad of cash. Dean's biggest limitation is he seemingly has no experience in not saying the wrong thing. I mean a debate between Dean and W would be one big foot in the mouth

If Nader runs, W will most assuredly win.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Personally, I get the whole "we need to feed our people not explore space idea," but I just do not agree with it on many levels. First, that task will create thousands of jobs. Second, history demonstrates it will unite people. Finally, its just cool to a techie like me

I'm not too sure about the job creation. I have friends that work for Lockheed Martin here in Colorado and what this may do is enable them to keep their jobs which looked uncertain in the face of the space shuttle disaster. Some of them regularly go through lay-off/rehire periods.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Time will tell. Personally, I think Clark would be a better candidate because he can shine on foreign affairs experience and he is seemingly well liked. Dean's strongsuit is he is controversial and he had a wad of cash. Dean's biggest limitation is he seemingly has no experience in not saying the wrong thing. I mean a debate between Dean and W would be one big foot in the mouth

If Nader runs, W will most assuredly win.

Well, I think that depends on whether Pat Buchanan is going to run. Bush has already alienated a lot of his conservative base with the immigration deal. Personally, I think he's starting to sound like a man in trouble and we're not anywhere near election day yet.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'm not too sure about the job creation. I have friends that work for Lockheed Martin here in Colorado and what this may do is enable them to keep their jobs which looked uncertain in the face of the space shuttle disaster. Some of them regularly go through lay-off/rehire periods.

Touche'

But still there will be a great need for many more scientists, engineers, laborers, raw materials, etc. to develop the required materials. So, certainly there will be some job creation.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Touche'

But still there will be a great need for many more scientists, engineers, laborers, raw materials, etc. to develop the required materials. So, certainly there will be some job creation.

I don't think this is ever going to pass. The space program was completely put on hold after the shuttle disaster. If it did pass, it will takes years to implement. So any of the effects would be way down the road.

[strandinthewind]

"Danish troops have found suspicious mortar shells in southern Iraq that officials believe contain blister agents, the United States and Denmark announced Saturday. The shells are at least 10 years old, and a U.S. Army official said he suspects the ordnance was surplus from the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-1980s. Blister agents are used in chemical weapons"

Go to Cnn's site at

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...als/index.html

[gldstwmn]

So?

[gldstwmn]

http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modul...72&newlang=eng

Iraq's Smoking Gun Discovered
In White House Holster


Only a day after the administration 'quietly' withdrew a 400 person team that was responsible for scouring Iraq for WMD's, it is apparent that someone has struck pay dirt in the hunt for those sinister weapons of mass destruction. As always, they turned up in the last place that you thought of looking for them in, the White House. According to a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Administration systematically misrepresented the threat posed by Iraq. Furthermore, the authors of the report are cited as stating that they found no conclusive evidence of the claims that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with al-Qaeda or that he would have transferred chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to that group.

The Washington Post has reported that 'Iraq's Arsenal Was o_nly o_n Paper' while the New York Times was quoting a member of the 1,400-member Iraqi Survey Group as saying that they were "still waiting for something to dispose of." You might think that after spending $166 billion dollars o_n the project that they might have at least purchased a few paper shredders?

All along, the administration has taken the position of 'just you wait and see' as they presented stall tactics such as 'Iraq is really big country', and 'Saddam had a really long time to hide his weapons of mass destruction'. Even the David Kay report claimed that we 'knew he had weapons at o_ne time' as they stated that Iraq's weapons program spanned 'decades'. What they didn't point out is the fact that most of the weapons had usable shelf lives far shorter than the period quoted.

The Washington Post has cited three intelligence officials as claiming that David Kay may decide not to return to his position as the head of the Iraqi Survey Group when his current holiday leave has concluded. The article further quotes an interview with the President in which he was questioned why he stated that Iraq's weapons were a "hard fact" when it now appears that they were o_nly an "intent to acquire them".

The article quotes the President:

"So what's the difference?" Bush responded. "The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger."

There have even been attempts to redefine weapons of mass destruction to the point of claiming that Saddam himself was a o_ne man 'weapon of mass destruction' and since we have captured him, the search is now over and hence the justification for war was vindicated when we captured him. The abuse of the definition of WMD has been so rampant that it has been included in the Lake Superior State University's list of "misused, overused and generally useless" words according an article by the BBC. It has even been claimed that small arms such as rifles should be considered to be WMD's.

The bottom line is that it doesn't take anything other than a thesaurus to convert the Carnegie assessment that the administration 'systematically misrepresented' the threat of weapons of mass destruction into that they 'thoroughly lied' about them.

This just reinforces my belief that the administration is desperate.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.freedomofthepress.net/qua...ingdissent.htm

Quarantining Dissent

How The Secret Service Protects Bush From Free Speech


by James Bovard, San Francisco Chronicle, January 4, 2003


When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area.

Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"

Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."

One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."

Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined.

Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."

When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone."

Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."

Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States."

If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5,000 fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense. Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.

Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access.

Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free-speech zone" but refused to cooperate.

The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way." Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.

The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political threat."

The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs -- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.

The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries.

When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George Bush and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."

Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area.

For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from protesters' messages.

Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom" and declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings."

Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.

Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere.

One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people.

When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."

Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.

On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."

The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official.

Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So?

The "so" is I think these are WMD and they were buried and, therefore, hidden from inspectors. This begs the question of how many more such things are buried. From what I read, and I will admit to not understanding exactly what a "blistering agenct" is, this goes a long way toward making the case that SH had chemical WMD directly in violation of his agreement with the UN. That is huge in my book