British Authorities Keep Asking Bush Administration to STOP LEAKING CLASIFIED INFORMATION ABOUT WAR ON TERROR TO THE PRESS!!!!!!

The Bush Administration just can’t stop leaking classified information about British activities to stop terrorists. The British are furious with them for flapping their lips to the press giving away key information they need to wage the war on terror. Last week the British angrily accused the Bush Administration of rushing them to arrest suspects before the suspects had bought tickets, gotten passports or made any bombs. The British have had to let go two of them without charge and may have to release several others according to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. The British accused the Bush administration of jumping the gun on linking the suspects to al Qaeda according the conservative Times of London. In that report British officials accused the Bush Administration of leaking things to the press in an effort to win in the November election for Republicans. Loose lips sink ships and the Bush Administration’s lips are like pudding spilling sensitive classified details to the media damaging National Security for political gain.

We need someone in charge who will wage a true war on terror and not a propaganda war on the Democratic Party. Vote Democratic in November. We don’t need loose lips sinking our ship of state any longer.

Questioning the Bush Administration is Now Blasphemy and Sinful – Commandment XI Thou Shalt Not Question the Lord Thy Bush!

Daithí Mac Lochlainn over at Gaelic Starover reports: Last week, David Ray Griffin appeared on the Tucker Carlson’s show on MSNBC.Mr. Carlson states that it is “wrong, blasphemous and sinful” to entertain suspicions about the events of September 11, 2001 and to seek the truth."Blasphemy" and "sin" are theological terms and "theology" is, of course, the study of God.

Theologian Francisco Suárez defined blasphemy as “any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God”. Most theistic religions seem to define blasphemy similarly, often extending it to include offenses against prophets and saints.

It is quite disturbing to hear anyone suggest that exercising one’s First Amendment right and daring to question elements within the Federal Government are “blasphemous”. Mr. Carlson’s statement is in itself blasphemous, idolatrous and indicative of the spiritual debauchery of this new century.

-- Daithí

I don’t know if I buy Griffin’s claims. I haven’t read his books, but it is interesting that so many Republicans think questioning Bush is blasphemous and sinful. Tucker Carlson is by no means unique in that feeling although this is the only video I’ve seen of a Republican actually saying that questioning Bush is blasphemous and sinful and therefore: Bush is God. But the implication that questioning Bush is sinful is quite prevalent from the right wing. And therefore the implication that Bush is a type of deity is equally prevalent among his supporters whether voiced or simply held in their hearts.

No one during Clinton’s time in office was stupid enough to say that of those critical of him. But as soon as Bush became president those critical of his policies were branded as un-American, unpatriotic, and now blasphemous and sinful.

There have been many leaders of the past who believed they were a god: the Emperor of Japan, the pharaohs of Egypt to name but two. President Bush has now become a third. Interesting to note that the pharaohs of Egypt fell from power crushed by Rome and the Emperor of Japan was forced to shamefully admit to his people that he was not a god when Japan suffered humiliating defeat at the hands of the allies in World War II. I hope the US does not suffer a humiliating defeat because Bush or his supporters entertain delusions of godhood.

Report: Airport X-rays DON’T detect explosives - Bush has been Making Americans Take off their Shoes Off for Nothing

The Associated Press has learned that airport x-ray machines are unable to detect explosives in shoes according to a Homeland Security report that the Bush Administration has had since April of 2005. On Sunday the Bush Administration made x-raying shoes of passengers mandatory, but most airports had been doing it since 2001.
In its April 2005 report, "Systems Engineering Study of Civil Aviation Security — Phase I," the Homeland Security Department concluded that images on X-ray machines don't provide the information necessary to detect explosives.
So even though the Bush Administration has known that x-raying shoes is useless in detecting explosives in shoes for more than a year they continued to have passengers take off their shoes and have now made it mandatory. How much more ineptitude and absence of true protection from terrorists can the American people take?

Vote for change this November.

Is the FBI investigating the Lieberman campaign? If not, why not?

David Sirota reports:

Totally honest question: will Joe Lieberman's Senate campaign be prosecuted by federal authorities? As you may recall, the Lieberman campaign accused Ned Lamont's campaign of hacking its website on election day. Lieberman's campaign has since admitted it had no evidence to support the claim. The major verifiable evidence that has been uncovered (here and here) shows that Lieberman's campaign skimped on its web service, and that its claims of losing email service on election day may have been lies. And as TPM Muckraker reported, the FBI said that if Lieberman's hacking allegations prove false, "the FBI and federal prosecutors could pursue charges against those who reported them." Specifically, if the charges were fabricated to slander the Lamont campaign, "there's Title 18, Section 1001, which is providing false statements to an FBI agent. That can be prosecuted at the discretion of the U.S. Attorney's Office."

Lieberman campaign spokesman Dan Gerstein has a long record of issuing public lies, as documented by Media Matters. And let's be clear - this is no small issue. Making deliberately dishonest claims about a campaign supposedly engaging in Watergate-style tactics goes beyond just the usual tit-for-tat and into pretty serious legal areas. Yes, yes, I know Gerstein has said slandering other Democrats as terrorist sympathizers "is what campaigns are all about" - but clearly, the law is pretty straightforward when it comes to making deliberately dishonest election day charges of fraud. Put in Gerstein's language, the law says that's "not what campaigns are all about" and, in fact, could land people in jail.

So again, not knowing if anyone has conclusively figured out why Lieberman's campaign website died on election day, my honest question: is the Lieberman campaign going to be prosecuted by federal authorities if their hacking charges prove false?
-- David Sirota

Keep in mind that President Bush has all but endorsed Lieberman by refusing to endorse the Republican candidate for Senator in the race, and the Republican National Party Chairman Ken Mehlman has refused to endorse the Republican candidate in that race, too. So the odds that the US Attorney (who reports to Bush through the Justice Department) will actually investigate let alone prosecute Lieberman for violating Title 18 are between slim and none, but if no evidence surfaces that Lieberman’s site was hacked as he claimed, let along hacked by his Democratic opponent as Lieberman’s site led voters to believe, then we all will know that Holy Joe broke the law and deserves to be thrown on the ash heap of politics. Whether the Bush Administration decides to follow the law and prosecute him or not. I don't care if he goes on TV and says, "I am not a crook." He still will be. And so will Bush if he doesn't prosecute him.

Joe

Israeli Officials Blame Bush for Israeli Attacks in Lebanon

Many Israeli officials are blaming Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure in Lebanon. "Bush even urged Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that far, according to Israeli sources."

Israeli newspaper Haaretz is predicting that Olmert will be forced out of office because of the Lebanon adventure. I disagree with some aspects of the editorial that basically says that Olmert has to become even more of a warmonger to hold on to his office (like that’s a good thing). The comparison with Golda Meir is very apt, though, but Henry Kissinger in his memoirs and others of that era judged that Meir’s intransigence toward a peace process delayed the eventual peace between Israel and Egypt. Sadat was willing to deal, but Meir wanted blood according to Kissinger. Arafat was only too glad to continue fighting and actually bragged that an overwhelming Israeli sense of nationalism was their (the PLO’s) greatest ally not the other Arab states. Arafat wanted continued fighting and knew he’d be cut out of a peace deal as he was when Begin and Sadat eventually signed the Camp David Accords a few years later in 1978. I do, however, think that the main thrust of the editorial is spot on: that Olmert will end up losing his job as Prime Minister for this.

The kicker is that Israeli officials blame Bush for their public relations catastrophe in Lebanon. While Corporate Mainstream Media in the US has been very sympathetic of Israel in this war, the press and the people of the rest of the world are pretty united in their disapproval of Israel’s many attacks on civilians and Lebanese infrastructure that seemed unconnected with Hezbollah. Israel has gotten a HUGE black eye in view of the world over this. Americans have been shielded from most of this reporting, though. Olmert will pay the price for this. I only hope that the Labor party can gain control of the government although that is less than certain.

Like those Israeli officials the people of Lebanon also blame the US for this war. At last the Israelis and the Lebanese are in agreement: it’s our fault. Lucky us.

Bush Administration Politicizing British Success Arresting Terrorists and Endangering Americans at Home

British officials involved in the break-up of the terrorism plot say that they wanted to continue surveillance for another week to increase the number of terrorists arrested, but the Bush Administration pressured them to arrest only the first 21 terrorists a week early. They were forced to arrest them before the terrorists bought plane tickets or got passports. Apparently the Bush Administration needed news of the capture just after Ned Lamont’s victory in Connecticut to torpedo his campaign.

As I posted below the Bush Administration and leaders of Congress knew about the danger of liquid explosives aboard planes for months (or years as this report says) but did nothing until now. Conservative Aviation Security Expert, Michael Boyd, explains (in this video and in this Congressional Report) that the Bush Administration is still doing little to protect Americans from airline terror.

Right wingers here in the US are trumpeting the British arrests as evidence that Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of American citizens worked. The only problem is that all of the wiretaps in this case were the result of court issued warrants proving that warrentFUL wiretaps work stopping terrorists. Again these arrests prove that getting warrants leads to successful arrests of terrorists. British law enforcement officers got warrants in British courts and US law enforcement officers got warrants from the FISA courts for wiretaps. Just the way it’s supposed to work—and IT DID WORK! Proving there is no need for warrantless wiretaps.

Conservative news host Lou Dobbs reports that the Bush Administration Defense Department and FAA lied to America and the 9/11 Commission about the events of September 11 and the two men Bush appointed to lead the 9/11 Commission agree saying Americans still don’t have the complete story from the administration.

ABC News reports:

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department’s own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security’s research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

Think about that: the Bush Administration tried to divert the money to detect the type of explosives British terrorists tried to smuggle aboard US bound planes and Homeland Security’s research arm is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course to protecting Americans according to both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

Do you really trust your family’s safety to Bush and the Republicans who repeatedly ignore threats to US safety? If not, you need to vote for change in November for a safer tomorrow. Your life and your family’s lives may depend upon it.

Read the editorial here.

!!!!!! Update !!!!!: British officials are furious with the US Administration for “jumping the gun” by declaring that al-Qaeda was behind the airline terror plot according to British sources.

It is understood that Britain asked the US to avoid making any such assertion, but diplomats believe that the request was ignored by Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security chief. There is suspicion that the speed with which the US linked al-Qaeda to the plot was motivated by political considerations because, before the November mid-term Congressional elections, Republicans are keen to stem voter anger against the Iraq war by focusing on national security.

One senior UK source said that with the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks approaching, “al-Qaeda is a term which is understood by swing voters”. He added: “We regard this as simplistic.”

On Thursday morning Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, used a press conference to point the finger of blame directly at al-Qaeda. Initially, he picked his words carefully, saying that the sophistication of the operation was “suggestive of alQaeda”, while acknowledging this was a “sensitive area for the British legal system”.

He later said that the plan was reminiscent of that “hatched by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [the al-Qaeda mastermind behind 9/11] in the 1990s” to blow up aircraft travelling over the Pacific.

Chertoff and other Bush Administration officials were saying the same thing on all of the news programs on Sunday in the US. Once again PROOF POSITIVE that the Bush Administration is politicizing terrorism to try to get votes in the 2006 election. If a Democratic president tried to pull this crap he'd be impeached!

None of the US news programs on Sunday featuring Chertoff and other Bush Administration officials making these claims were challenged by reporters. The Subservient Lapdog Corporate Mainstream Media in the US just airs these claims without question. Any wonder who the Corporate Owners of those stations favor? I didn’t think so. Why is it that British people get this news (from the conservative Times of London no less), but American voters are shielded from this information? Vote Democratic in November and write to the media telling them that you won’t buy from their advertisers as long as they continue to censor the news from American viewers.

Bush Administration Knew Liquid Explosives Danger to Airlines Months Ago—Only Barred Liquids Aboard Flights AFTER British Terror Plot Became News

Back in October of last year through January of this year the Governmental Accountability Office conducted tests (at the request of Democrats in Congress) and found that liquid explosive components could be smuggled aboard US airlines in 21 US airports. The non-partisan GAO delivered a full report to Congress in March of this year and that information was shared with the White House. The Bush Administration and leaders in Congress sat on that information since March of this year. It wasn’t until yesterday when British law enforcement stopped a plot to blow up planes bound for the US that the Bush Administration banned passengers carrying liquids aboard flights although this report from March shows that the GAO and the 9/11 Commission begged the president to do so months ago.

I reported about this in this blog back in March given what information I had at that time. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC’s Countdown had more as this video shows. Bush and Congress had even more information.

Thanks to Keith Olbermann for warning Americans in March and again today. Video – Windows Multimedia Video version Video – Quick Time version

Today Bush and his administration (as well as Joe Lieberman) are telling Americans that they alone can be trusted to protect America from terrorists and yet they ignored warnings about the very type of plot the British terrorists planned 5 months ago when they were warned in the GAO report and warned by the 9/11 Commission about this very danger.

Within hours of the British arrest of the terrorists the Republican Party started sending out email fundraising appeals mentioning it to get concerned Americans to contribute to the Republican Party! “In the middle of a war on terror, we need to remain focused on furthering Republican ideas more than ever before,” former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a letter that asked for donations to the Republican National Committee. “Freedom is never free, and we must never be complacent in defending it,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said. Echoing the GOP's election-year message, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., added: “We must be on alert so that our nation does not suffer another attack like 9/11.”

Think about that: they did nothing for 5 months after being warned until terrorists almost blew up planes bound for the US, and yet they ask for money and tell us to trust them to protect us from terrorists? Sorry you lying sacks of shit! We Americans no longer buy your pack of lies!

This November vote Democratic for a change. A change that may save your life!

Republican Party Caught PhotoShopping Hitler Mustache on Howard Dean’s Face on their Web Site

An alert blogger grabbed a screenshot of the GOP Home Page with Howard Deans face PhotoShopped to have a Hitler mustache. They have since removed the Hitler mustache when people complained. This was what the Official Republican Party Web Site looked like:



Here’s the undoctored (no pun intended) image:



The GOP’s official Web Site PhotoShopped a Howard Dean picture shadowing in a Hitler mustache. Think about that. Remember all the fuss the GOP had when some people tried to enter Hitler ads on MoveOn.Org and MoveOn removed them as soon as they learned that a regular American had put it on their site. The Republicans still complain about this, they continue to call Democrats Nazis and compare them to Hitler. And now they shadow in Hitler mustaches on prominent Democrats. After complaints they have now changed the picture on their site to the original non-Hitler mustached version.:



The GOP was caught red-handed lying to America.

More on this at this site. There is even more information here. TPM found that Deans hair was also made more Hitleresque in the GOP's first photo. Study the two photos. They contacted the Republican Party who have chosen not to respond to this hoping the media will ignore it. They're right.

This should be a front page story and would be if the Democratic Party PhotoShopped a Hitler mustache on Bush or any other Republican and posted it on their website, but because the Republicans did this to a Democrat the Subservient Lapdog Corporate Mainstream Media Whores will obediently ignore this as they have so many other stories.

Instead the media says, "What should we tell the American people now, Mr. Rove?"

Coming this Fall: the Lieberman Senate

According to the Daily Show, Joe Lieberman announced that not only will he disregard the results of the Democratic primary by running in November as an independent; if he loses that election he will declare himself the majority leader of his own Senate. If not nominated he will run and if not elected he will serve. Lieberman compared his loss in the primary to losing the first half of a game not the entire game. Reporter Samantha Bee compared it to a guy who is told by the girl he likes that she doesn’t want to go out with him and he responds that he will pick her up on Tuesday. He’s not persistent; he’s a stalker.

Video - WMV (hi quality, 14 megs) Video - WMV (low quality, 5 megs) Video - QT (high only, 14 megs)