>> ^Aniatario:
I have no idea why but watching this video just made me laugh. It's insane! What the hell is that wall going to accomplish? and how many lives are going to be lost just to put the damn thing up?


The answer is Two, two soldiers have died while trying to put that wall up, and 15% of that company has been injured. Articles about the Wall here.

Sad thing is some concrete contractor is laughing. During the Bush Admin prices for everything, all over the world have soared, yet oil companies like Exxon are now earning $1,300 a second. Is George Bush a failed oil man? Not anymore, I bet he's the "coolest" Oil Man in Texas these days. Once he's out the White House he is off to Paraguay to live on his 10,000 acre ranch.

Bush also said in his debates that he's not in the business of nation building. What is said
to gain the trust and the suport of a country while trying to take its top position can never be taken whole heartedly. While I think McCain will be somewhat of an impovement I fear that the Bush Admin. has rooted itself very deeply in the infrastructure (Supreme Ct, CIA, World Bank, Fed Reserve...). The President is one main in a machine that stays largely the same.

Plus, to be on topic, it's much easier to bomb Iran if we have bases next door.

>> ^bcglorf:
The piece I was addressing was your final statement:
Under McCain I can only imagine what's next.
I quoted your whole post to keep it in context. If we can't believe anything about McCain because it comes through the American news Media, how can we say anything about any other candidate by comparison either? One thing that can provide some reliable insight to McCain's intentions compared to the other Rep candidates and Bush, is from debates. You'll notice there is absolutely no hedging or conditions on McCain's stance against waterboarding and on standing behind the Geneva convention. To me, that is a great big step forward from Bush and Cheney. It suggests that your statement,"Under McCain I can only imagine what's next" is inaccurate in suggesting that McCain will be oh so worse than Bush.

There are many who want to attack Iran for purely economic/political reasons, including the Bush admin, the Neo-cons, The military-industrial-complex, the extreme right wing of the US, the extreme right wing of Israel and the DLC as well as other factions.

These factions often site Iran's nuclear program as justification for attack. In reality, the nuclear program is for energy, not weapons. Creating nuclear weapons is not something you can hide from detection. In other words, if Iran decides to make nukes, we will know from the very outset of the program.

Everyone agrees that Iran shouldn't create nuclear weaponry, but it seems that all candidates must court the bloodthirsty factions I listed in the first paragraph. The trick is to determine the intent of the candidates based on their brief, vague statements.

I would interpret Obama's measured quote to mean, 'I would not allow Iran to create a nuclear weapons program if they were dumb enough to do so, but it will never happen, because covertly creating a nuclear weapons program is an impossibility, not to mention a huge political loser for the country.'

I would interpret Hillary's extremely aggressive quote to mean, 'If I get an intelligence report (wink) about yellow cake, WMD's, or (wink) nuclear weapons (wink), I will act on it.'

I have no reason to believe she would be any better on Iran than she was on Iraq. For the record, I don't think Hillary was duped by Bush on Iraq. I think she knew exactly what she was doing.

Of course, this is just one persons opinion. I could be wrong.

This is the type of thing that annoys the hell out of me. What should be a fairly solid and easy subject turns into mission impossible because of things like this.

I see no secondary explosions, what I see is the natural result of a massive impact and explosion venting by the easiest way possible, in the general direction that the force was applied and out of the near side of the building. Force of the impact might have carried debris out those windows even without the explosion, I see nothing unnatural there.

In the meantime we never have asked who stripped us of air cover and left us wide open in spite of that fact being printed in the papers beforehand, someone was damned well responsible and I don't remember anyone getting blame. Just medals. The head of the 9-11 commission and others complained about being stonewalled and blocked access to info, they never did interview a terrorist suspect *or* anyone who had actual contact with them but were restricted to reports the Bush admin cleared, we now know they were lied to when they asked for information and were told there were no interrogation tapes, we know plenty to establish that there are questions. We know there was negligence and cover up at least but rather than look into that we want it all.

If people would just stop insisting that Bush had to have done it himself even if we can't prove it maybe we could get somewhere with investigating what we can prove. As it stands now I tend to ignore the issue simply because it's one that's impossible to accomplish anything in, we're all seen as conspiracy theorists and legitimate questions are drowned out or ignored. There are other issues we can accomplish something in. I really wish this one one of them though, there are real issues if they could be heard through the noise.

he says about 3 mins in "The first thing I thought of when I heard about 9/11, is that the Bush admin. will use this event, like the Nazi's used the Reichstag fire.....

uhhhhh, the Nazi's burned that down themselves, we later find out, innit???

Sherlocks' everywhere, at least unite on the possibility of foul play, Jesus Christ, we all know the USA is full of gullible prawns anyhow.....

Business as ususal for the USA, means that in 2 more generations, the population will have been effectively rendered incapable, of discerning fact from fiction....just look at how many folks still believe in lone gunmen???

Thought-crime is punishable by a jellied brain.

Most people in news read from a prompter, I couldn't help but to notice it being during Cafferty rant about the Bush admin that the prompter guy decides to screw up.

Who is begging for Huge government?
Are you saying Bill Maher is lucky that he still has a show? on HBO?

Bill is simply bringing attention to many facts about civil liberties.

For example, The Bush Admin can read your mail.
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/257598.htm

Call Bill Maher "Bignosed" all you want it doesn't change the fact that good honest hard working people are being mistaken as terrorists and sent off to torture camps.

To me that does sound Orwellian. Maher is doing something by speaking out about it.

This is pretty good. I never realized how much Bush admin is very much like the US version of The Office.

News documentaries like this one should always have a critical perspective. Intelligent people can discern the perspective. Sheep will be sheep even if you just turn on the camera and microphone.

Farhad, I also think that you vastly overrate a perceived unitary structure within the executive branch of the American Government. You offer compelling sites showing that evidence certainly existed (of the attacks, of the lack of WMD). The most highly trained and specialized intelligence unit does not have area specialists who are Arabs. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also does not have area specialists. And these two groups interact like Italian principalities in the 1500s. It takes coordination to use and apply evidence in an intelligent way and the Bush Admin. coordinates nothing. Finally, I don't believe that anyone working in the Congress or Executive Branch was "fooled" into going to Iraq. We all are aware that is a vast oversimplication to say that the U.S. is there for WMD. It is larger than that. The United States is there for much larger geopolitical aims of the New American Century

I get a kick out of all of this, not because they claim aliens exist but because of the Far out theories people make up to prove aliens exist. they're only following exapmles *cough* bush admin *cough*

Verify sources and consider them. Ye'll find a LOT of sources on this interview here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092506/content/clinton_interview_overview.guest.html

Just go to the bottom of the page for links to over a dozen articles and analysis.

All I really got from this was that Clinton can't take tough questions. He's used to having interviews like on Larry King et. al where the toughest questions asked of him are "do you agree that Bush is bad for America?" Can anyone say 'softball'?

Bush is repeatedly and regulary excoriated in the most disrespectful and insolent manner possible by almost everyone he is interviewed by and 'hostile' questions/comments come up repeatedly by the snarky interviewers who almost always suffix it with 'why won't you admit your mistakes and confess that this war/your presidency is illegal/illegitimate?'

But let one interviewer ask the crowned King-William Jefferson-Blyyyyyyythe-Clinton-III if HE did anything wrong and he blows up. Note he was not asked to 'admit his mistakes'. But he responded as if he had been.

Always the same song and dance. Wagging his finger in our faces and saying "I did NOT have sex with that woman. I never lied - I never told anyone to lie." Chewing on his bottom lip as if he were the one who had been horribly wronged. Furiously attacking everyone who disagrees with him, but if he is ever criticized it's: "Hey - no attack.... ever fed... a hungry child."

The wagging finger is almost a sure sign that he's lying. He lied right there in that interview. He said Richard Clark was removed before 9/11 from his post - hinting that this 'led' to the attacks and that if only he had remained there, they might have been prevented. He even cited Clark's book as proof of it. But if you actually read his book, Clark says himself that he REMIANED the terrorism 'czar' until AFTER 9/11 and that he changed posts not at the insistence of the Bush admin, but because he wanted to be in charge of the new department.

So who was lying? Clinton, or Clark? Because if Clinton was lying, that's no surprise. But if Clark was lying in his book, then Clinton is doubly at fault, because he lied in citing it as the truth.

This is not a man who is quick on his feet or a great stateman. He's an immature beaurocrat who's used to having the media covering for him, and was flabbergasted that they didn't. If any of these other 'news' networks had any salt in them at all, they'd be asking him tough questions like this. Remember, this is the guy who fought to stomp on the ever-beloved 1st amendment by threatening Disney and ABC to cancel "The Path to 9/11". For once, thankfully, they didn't pay any attention to him.

Slyrr