posted November 18, 2004 09:55 AM              

“Come let us reason together…”

By: Jack Dalton

“All men having power ought to be mistrusted.” James Madison

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” James Madison, Federalist Paper 47

Shortly after George W. Bush unleashed the “Dogs of War” on Iraq last year, and right after an emerging insurgency started growing, Bush asked, “What’s the matter with those people; don’t they know how good we [Americans] are?” And that right there is at the heart of what I see as a very big problem with so very many of my fellow American citizens—and one that in many ways is getting worse and not better.

Here in the U.S. there is a “deeply-held belief that no matter what this nations governing body does abroad, no matter how bad what it does may appear, no matter what horror may result, the American government means well;” That the government has good intentions and means well; And, generally speaking, the American public wonders why the rest of the world can’t see how “kind” and “generous” and “self-sacrificing” America is and has been. Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with “good intentions.”

My questions to my fellow American citizens are this: What for you would be too much? What would this nation’s government have to do in its foreign policy, or domestic policies, that would cause you to forsake your basic belief in and support for that governing body and its policies?

It is apparent to me at this point in time that invading a country which posed no real threat to this nation— Iraq for instance—is not enough, for many, to question that support for this current cabal. The distortions and outright lies concerning Medicare and liability lawsuits appear not to be enough to raise questions by those of you who continue your support for Bush. Grossly under-funding the Veterans Administration Health Care system does not seem to generate any significant level of concern either.

Again I ask, what for you would be too much?

The growing number of dead, ours and Iraq ’s, seems not to be enough to question that support—why? Over 100,000 Iraqi’s have been slaughtered since the U.S. invasion of that country to date, with that toll rising due to what has taken place in Fallujah: the deliberate bombing of one of two hospitals with the remaining hospital taken over by U.S. troops as a base of operations; Iraqi medical staff at the hospital were killed or arrested; cluster bombs all over the city; medical aide, food, water all being denied entry to Fallujah while children die in their parents arms because they cannot leave their homes without being shot by U.S. troops; and young people in uniform with guns that should be at home being young people now having their minds warped by war as exemplified by a statement by one young Marine—“I got my kill…I just love my job.”

That’s a cost of war—how to steal someone’s innocence and turn them into a killer that will have to learn to live with that for the rest of their lives. Then back on the home front, back from war:

15 hours after being discharged from the Army, a young man who spent 12 months in Baghdad and another three months due to “stop loss” was in an auto accident. Paramedics and hospital—two days later his arm was swelling and very painful; Turns out he had a blood clot in his arm from the IV the paramedics put in. This young man’s father took him to the local V.A. just to be turned away being told he did not qualify for V.A. care. This is not an isolated incident and the list is growing—daily. Then there is the young man that lost both legs in Iraq that is recovering living in his car

Once again I ask, what for you would be too much for you to be able to continue your support of these policies and those that make them?

Never in my 60+ years have I been witness to the level of corruption as what is taking place today with this current governing body led by Bush and Cheney. The increasing levels of secrecy by Bush, the criminals running congress like Tom DeLay, the nexus between government and corporations as exemplified by Dick Cheney and Halliburton. The influence pedaling by an army of over 26,000 corporate lobbyists who “help” write the nations laws is at a level unseen in this nation’s history.

Right after the election Tom DeLay went on record stating that now the republicans will be about the business of “insuring permanent republican control of this nation’s government” and that “we” can now bring about “a bible based government.” Right behind that George W. Bush & Co. is now about the business of placing absolute Bush loyalists in the highest levels of government.

Condoleezza Rice as Sec of State—she is loyal to Bush, period. Alberto Gonzales as head of the Department of Justice—he believes the Geneva Convention is “quaint” and that Bush is above the law. Peter Goss, Bush loyalist, heads the C.I.A. and is now following his orders and is now busy “purging” that organization so it will be more in line with BushCo. Rice will be given orders to do likewise in the State Department. This sounds more like the old Soviet Union and all its purges back in the 50’s.

In short the “Criminalization of the State” is what is taking place and still so many believe in and support this criminal enterprise known as the Bush administration.

This country, due to Bush & Co, is on its way to becoming a third world nation. Prices are rising, wages are dropping, value of the dollar is falling, countries are turning to the euro over the dollar, the gap between rich and poor is the greatest it has ever been and is the greatest gap of any industrialized nation and it is growing, personal bankruptcies are at the highest levels ever and growing, and all the while from BushCo we are told the only “reality” is the one they—BushCo—create.

What is it that would be too much for even you true believers in this administration to be able to continue your support for the single most disastrous administration to ever hold the reigns of power of our government?

There is an agenda at work here and it is not about the betterment of the nation as a whole. It is about securing power, solidifying that power and gaining even more power and then making it permanent. That is the “strategic initiative” of the neo-con self professed “Christians” that have hijacked the Republican Party.

We are in the grip of a dangerous “patriotism” actually nationalism which is being driven by “faith,” militarism, and a moral superiority that gives little to no value to the rest of humanity and that includes us, the American people that stand in opposition to BushCo’s re-making and re-defining of our nation.

Once again I ask, what for you would be too much to continue your support of those that are setting about the business of forever changing what this country is, what it represents and how and by whom it will be governed.

The Declaration of Independence enumerates the charges the colonies leveled at King George of England in 1776. Here are just a few of them:

“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…”

“He has made Judges dependent on his will alone…”

“He has erected a multitude of new offices and has sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people…”

“He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power…”

“He has combined with other to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution (just look at the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc)

“For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury…”

“For taking away our charters (laws), abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government…”

Need I say more past what for you would be too much to continue your support for what is unquestionably the most disastrous group of people to ever capture the reigns of power and government in this country?

Faith is good to have, but at the same time it cannot replace reason. When it does disaster always is the end result. “Come, let us reason together…” Isaiah 1:18

Jack Dalton is a disabled Vietnam veteran and independent writer that lives in Portland , Oregon . He is also a columnist for the Project for the Old American Century at http://oldamericancentury.org/index.htm All comments are welcomed, good, bad and everything in-between. His email address is jack_dalton@ommp.org

posted November 18, 2004 11:00 AM              

This Tom DeLay guy is a disgrace to the position he holds as majority leader in the House of Representatives. He has had more ethics violations brought against him than in the history of the House including bribery to get other Reps. from his own Republican Party to vote as he wanted him to on the medicare bill, harassment and intimidation of other members of the House, you name it. He has had countless reprimands from the ethics committee.

First order of business after the election was for DeLay to get his cronies in the House ( those seeking chairmanships and higher positions) to cover his butt for him to keep him from being ousted as majority leader. There were petitions signed by millions of Americans asking that he be ousted as majority leader. He is also afraid of being called into testify in some dirty private dealings. Yet he is always saying how he is a "good Christian." UH-HUH. Aren't they all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/politics/18house.html?oref=login&th
House G.O.P. Acts to Protect Chief
By CARL HULSE

Published: November 18, 2004

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Spurred by an investigation connected to the majority leader, House Republicans voted Wednesday to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted.

Meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers agreed that a party steering committee would review any indictments handed up against the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, or any other members of the leadership team or committee chairmen, to determine if giving up a post was warranted. The revision does not change the requirement that leaders step down if convicted.

The new rule was adopted by voice vote. Its chief author, Representative Henry Bonilla of Texas, said later that only a handful of members had opposed it.

The Republicans' old rule was adopted in August 1993 to put a spotlight on the legal troubles of prominent Democrats. Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

"Attorneys tell me you can be indicted for just about anything in this country, in any county or community," said Mr. Bonilla, an ally of Mr. DeLay. "Sometimes district attorneys who might have partisan agendas or want to read their name in the paper could make a name for themselves by indicting a member of the leadership, regardless of who it may be, and therefore determine their future. And that's not right."

Mr. DeLay said he had not instigated the change. But he applauded it nevertheless, saying it could deprive "political hacks" of an ability to influence the makeup of the Republican leadership.

Republican lawmakers "fixed the rules so that Democrats cannot use our rules against us," he said.

Mr. DeLay said he did not expect to be indicted, but added, "This has nothing to do with whether I was going to be or not going to be.''

The comments of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Bonilla were clearly directed at Ronnie Earle, the district attorney in Travis County, Tex., including Austin, who won indictments earlier this year against three political associates of the majority leader. The investigation by Mr. Earle, a Democrat, involves charges of illegally using corporate money to help Republicans win state legislative races in 2002. Those Republican victories in turn gave the state party enough legislative muscle to win redistricting changes that helped Congressional Republicans gain five additional seats in Texas on Nov. 2.

Despite the indictments of his associates, Mr. DeLay has not been called to testify, and Mr. Earle has not said whether the congressman is a target.

Not all Republicans agreed with Wednesday's rule change, which was adopted after some two and a half hours of debate.

"This is a mistake," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

When the Republicans gained control of the House in the elections of 1994, "we were going to be different,'' Mr. Shays said.

But "every time we start to water down what we did in '94," he said, "we are basically saying the revolution is losing its character."

Democrats and outside watchdogs bitterly criticized the change.

"Today Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip. "They unabashedly abandoned any pretense of holding themselves to a high ethical standard, by deciding to ignore criminal indictments of their leaders as reason for removal from leadership posts in the Republican Party."

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that follows campaign finance issues, said: "With this decision, we have gone from DeLay being judged by his peers to DeLay being judged by his buddies. It's an absurd and ludicrous new rule and an affront to the American people."

Republicans said Democrats had no standing to criticize them, since House Democratic rules have no provision to remove indicted party leaders, though they do require indicted committee chairmen to step aside. The minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said Wednesday that her party would quickly expand the provision to cover leadership posts as well.

Republicans have reached a new low," Ms. Pelosi said. "It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."

The change follows two admonitions that Mr. DeLay received from the bipartisan House ethics committee this fall, one involving a House floor vote, the other a fund-raiser. Mr. DeLay has built strong loyalty in the House over the years by helping raise campaign money and paying close attention to the personal legislative interests of Republican lawmakers, and the ethics committee's action angered some of his supporters in the chamber.

Mr. DeLay and many other House Republicans have criticized Mr. Earle's inquiry as highly partisan. "Ronnie Earle is trying to criminalize politics," Mr. DeLay said. "I think that is wrong."

Mr. Earle, in a statement issued by his office, said the Republican rule change would have no effect on the continuing investigation. But he added, "It should be alarming to the public to see their leaders substitute their judgment for that of the law enforcement process."

House Republicans did not dispute the idea that the change had been brought on by the events in Texas but said most of the majority's lawmakers had also concluded that the rule was simply unfair.

"In my sincere opinion, it only provoked the timing" of the change, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said of the Texas inquiry. "When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."

The new rule says that upon the return of an indictment against a committee chairman, a subcommittee chairman or a party leader, a steering committee made up of House leaders other than the accused lawmaker will have 30 days to recommend to the full Republican conference "what action, if any, the conference shall take concerning said member."

Though the change had been a subject of discussion for the last week, it was not submitted by Mr. Bonilla until right before a Tuesday deadline that Republicans had set to offer proposals for rules in the new Congress. Mr. Bonilla and others said the Republican conference, including many members elected only two weeks ago, had been insistent on the revision.

"It is the right thing to do," said Representative John Carter of Texas, a former judge.

While House Republicans were acting on the rule, Congress continued its reorganization for 2005. House Democrats and Senate Republicans re-elected their leadership teams for the most part. In the only real race, Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina gained a one-vote victory over Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota to head the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which provides guidance and money for Republican candidates.

quote:

---

"Ronnie Earle is trying to criminalize politics," Mr. DeLay said.

---

What DeLay fails to say is that the Democrats never needed it in writing because it was understood that any Democratic representative who was indicted or even under investigation automatically was to step down. It was just the ethical thing for them do. To prevent the Republicans from making it an issue ( which you see they already have done) the Democrats said they would get it in writing for their rules of conduct and even broaden it.

posted November 18, 2004 08:45 PM              

It was not the Democrats who brought DeLay up in their news conference after the caucus. They did not like the reporters bringing up the issue of DeLay but answered their questions anyway.

So what is the propaganda, pidua? Where is the propaganda coming from? Because the only propaganda I saw in these articles was from DeLay himself and his cronies in the house.

Obviously you are against democracy. Is that a correct assumption to make, pidua? Obviously you prefer living in a fascist nation. Is that a correct assumption, pidua? If not then answer the question. How far does this administration have to go before you stop supporting their criminal behavior both in this country and abroad? What will it take pidua for you to stop supporting these men? How far do they have to go for you, pidua? Answer the question.

Instead of name calling and mudslinging anyone who disagrees with you answer the question. What will it take? You've already lost any semblance of democracy in this country by supporting these men. Obviously you care nothing about democracy so what will it take? Answer the question, pidua.

Instead of blindly following propaganda yourself you need to look into what is really going on in this country. Get educated. Instead of making flippant remarks at anyone who does not agree with your warped and unbased opinions get educated on what is really going on. Take the blinders off.

posted November 18, 2004 09:42 PM            

And we know none of these civilians were in reality terrorists, now don't we?

And how do we know? Well, because the terrorists wear military uniforms, now don't they and are easily identified, now aren't they?

And you would like to inflate the numbers as much as possible.

And you wonder why the left is called the lying left, now don't you?

And you would like to see the Taliban and Saddam Hussein still in power in Afghanistan and Iraq, wouldn't you?

And, you would like to ignore the 500,000 dead Iraqis excavated from the mass graves that Saddam put there, now wouldn't you?

Civilian toll estimates at 10/04
Iraq Body Count: 14-16,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000
Lancet: >100,000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm

posted November 18, 2004 09:51 PM            

IRAQ BODY COUNT Press Releases

PR10: Monday 7th November 2004

IBC response to the Lancet study estimating "100,000" Iraqi deaths

Some people have asked us why we have not increased our count to 100,000 in the light of the multiple media reports of the recent Lancet study [link] which claims this as a probable and conservative estimate of Iraqi casualties.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.

The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]). Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a civilian count.

One frequently cited misapprehension is that IBC "only can count deaths where journalists are present."[link] This is incorrect, and appears to arise from unfamiliarity with the variety of sources which the media may report and IBC has used. These sources include hospital and morgue officials giving totals for specific incidents or time periods, totals which in turn have sometimes been integrated into overall tolls of deaths and injuries for entire regions of Iraq as collated by central agencies such as the Iraqi Health Ministry (see KRT 25th September 2004 [link]); these are all carefully separated from more "direct" as well as duplicate media reporting before being added to IBC's database. The Lancet's survey data was itself gathered without journalists being present, and yet is widely reported in the press. Were the Lancet study a count and not a projection, it too could after appropriate analysis become part of the IBC database. Little-known but impeccably reported death tolls in fact constitute the larger part of IBC's numbers (as can be seen by sorting IBC's database by size of entry). We believe that such counts - when freely conducted and without official interference - have the potential to far exceed the accuracy and comprehensiveness even of local press reporting. It is after all the job of morgues and hospitals to maintain such records, and not the media's, who simply report their findings.

We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection about what the "unseen" number of deaths might have been. This total can only be established to our satisfaction by a comprehensive count carried out by the Iraqi government, or other organisation with national or transnational authority.

Others have asked us to comment on whether the Lancet report's headline figure of 100,000 is a credible estimate. At present our resources are focused on our own ongoing work, not assessing the work of others. At an earlier stage, we did indeed provide an assessment of other counting projects [link], to provide what clarity we could for better public understanding of the issues involved. In that instance the projects under review were similar to ours, in that they attempted to amass data on actual deaths (and some of their findings have subsequently been integrated into our own count). Nonetheless, the Lancet's estimate of 100,000 deaths - which is on the scale of the death toll from Hiroshima - has, if it is accurate, such serious implications that we may return to the subject in greater detail in the near future. As of this writing we are more concerned with renewed air and ground attacks on Falluja, which last April left over 800 Iraqis dead, some 600 of them civilians (see previous IBC press release below).

It may already be noted, however, that Iraq Body Count, like the Lancet study, doesn't simply report all deaths in Iraq (people obviously die from various causes all the time) but excess deaths that can be associated directly with the military intervention and occupation of the country. In doing this, and via different paths, both studies have arrived at one conclusion which is not up for serious debate: the number of deaths from violence has skyrocketed since the war was launched (see IBC Press Release September 23rd 2003 [link]; also AP 24th May 2004 [graphic chart]).

We also recognise the bravery of the investigators who carried out the Lancet survey on the ground, and support the call for larger and more authoritative investigations with the full support of the coalition and other official bodies.

Finally, we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures, be they of deaths under Saddam's regime, or in other much larger-scale wars. Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

posted November 18, 2004 09:56 PM              

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/ubbcode.html

This link will tell you all you need to know. To get to it yourself, click on Smilies Legend, found on the left of the posting window (or whatever it's called).

posted November 19, 2004 12:25 PM            

The complaint against DeLay by Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas, violated a committee rule barring use of "innuendo, speculative assertions or conclusory statements," ethics Chairman Joel Hefley and senior Democrat Alan Mollohan wrote Bell.

Hefley, of Colorado, and Mollohan, of West Virginia, also used the four-page letter to place all House members on notice that future use of exaggerations and innuendoes could result in dismissal of the complaint in addition to disciplinary action.
The letter to Bell was not a disciplinary action.

Bell lost in a primary earlier this year because of a redistricting plan engineered by DeLay, a fellow Texan.

A freshman, Bell said he had "grave concerns that this is going to intimidate other members from coming forward to file meritorious complaints in the future. We need to work to open the ethics process up, not clamp it down. This is further evidence that the ethics process in the House is broken and needs to be fixed."

The committee rejected Bell's view in a statement released Friday. It said the letter to Bell was "not intended to inhibit" members from filing ethics complaints and it should not have that effect.

'Review Carefully'

"Instead, the effect of this action should be to prompt any member who is considering filing a complaint to review its contents carefully and to ensure that the complaint does not contain any of the objectionable elements that are identified here," the statement said.

The committee letter was delivered to Bell's office Thursday.

Bell's complaint was not dismissed, the letter said, because it contained allegations against DeLay that warranted consideration, and because the committee had not previously rejected any complaint for violations of the rule against innuendo and speculation.

The committee concluded in October that DeLay appeared to link political donations to a legislative favor and improperly persuaded federal aviation authorities to intervene in a Texas political dispute.

Hefley and Mollohan wrote Bell, "Indeed, it appears there is no purpose for including excessive or inflammatory language or exaggerated charges in a complaint except in an attempt to attract publicity and hence, a political advantage."

Democrat 'Contempt and Reckless Disregard'

DeLay spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty said the letter "demonstrates the contempt and reckless disregard Chris Bell has shown for the Ethics Committee and its members by knowingly violating the rules of the House to advance his and his party leadership's political agenda of personal destruction."

The letter said the most serious exaggeration was Bell's contention that DeLay violated a bribery law "by soliciting campaign contributions" from a Kansas corporation, Westar Energy, in return for legislative assistance on an energy bill.

"There can hardly be a more serious charge against a public official than that he or she solicited a bribe," the committee letter said. It added that DeLay's actions "did not come even close to supporting this extremely serious claim."

The committee found in October that DeLay "created an appearance" of favoritism when he mingled at a 2003 golf outing with Westar executives just days after they contributed to a political organization associated with DeLay.

Bell's complaint also asserted:

That the majority leader "engaged in a concerted and relentless effort to use the official resources of office" for "blatantly partisan political activities."
The Hefley-Mollohan letter said the facts did not support this broad allegation.

That DeLay dispensed special favors to Westar.
The committee said Bell's complaint cited no action taken by DeLay for Westar. The committee's findings did say that Westar was seeking help with legislation at the time of the golf outing.

That DeLay was solely responsible for federal aviation authorities tracking down an airplane in an effort to locate Democrat lawmakers fleeing the state. The legislators left Texas in an effort to prevent state Republican legislators from passing DeLay's redistricting plan.
The letter said it was a misstatement to attribute actions of federal officials solely to DeLay, when the Texas Department of Public Safety also contacted federal aviation authorities.

DeLay contacted the FBI in the effort to locate the Texas lawmakers.
The letter said there is no indication that DeLay called the FBI.

Democrat Uses Campaign Money to Go to Grammys

In another development, the committee decided to take no action against Rep. Karen McCarthy, D-Mo., after finding that she misused campaign funds for a trip to the Grammy Awards and refused to repay the money.

"I'm pleased the committee recommended no action, as I know I did nothing wrong," she said in a statement.

posted November 19, 2004 12:40 PM            

C-Span is not 100%- I did NOT argue that there were idiots in this world - in our own congress trying to apply "Old Law" to current events, as it suits their agenda.

I did say that it was propaganda on their part as their argument doesn't hold water.