The Daily Brew

Saturday, June 01, 2002:

Common Sense // 12:59 PM


Common Sense // 12:55 PM


"Q: When did the President change his mind about nation-building?

"A: Can you be more specific? What are you referring to?

"Q: Well, the New York Times really strongly interprets his speech yesterday—something that you want to build—now you're going to take care of health, welfare, and education of the Afghans in the aftermath of the hostilities. That's nation-building.

"A: The President has always been for those. I think what you're getting—

"Q: He's always been for—

"A: Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

"Q: Well, every statement by you—

"A: And what were those statements, Helen?

"Q: —that you don't believe in nation-building.

"A: What were the statements that I made that would indicate that?

"Q: And the President's campaign.

"A: What statement in particular, if you're going to accuse the President of changing policy?

"Q: The President said he didn't—I can't give you word for word.

"A: Right. But here—I can.

"Q: But he said in the campaign that he did not believe in nation-building.

"A: Helen, I can give you word for word. And what the President said is that the purpose of the military should be to fight and win wars. The President has always believed in helping strengthen nations, and that's why the United States has been Afghanistan's largest supplier of food, health care, all the items of foreign aid that we provide to help build an infrastructure.

"Don't confuse that, which the President has always supported, with the use of the military as peacekeepers, the use of the military to do things other than fighting and winning wars. …

"Q: Then he equates nation-building with peacekeeping forces, right? That's what you're saying?

"A: I'm—what the President has said is that the military should be used to fight and win wars. The President does believe in helping nations to grow, to be successful. And you can call that nation-building if you want; the President has always been for that."

—White House press spokesman Ari Fleischer at an April 18 press conference.

"Q: There's been—some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind, that comes in after the military, that builds nations or all of that? Is that—is that on your radar screen?

"A: Well—I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."
—Candidate George W. Bush in the second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000

Common Sense // 12:53 PM


"We're working with Chancellor Schröder on what's called 10-plus-10-over-10: $10 billion from the U.S.,$10 billion from other members of the G7 over a 10-year period, to help Russia securitize the dismantling—the dismantled nuclear warheads." Pretzeldent Smirk—Berlin, Germany, May 23, 2002
Common Sense // 12:51 PM


From the New Republic:

"Natan Sharansky, Israeli housing minister and erstwhile Russian dissident, warned throughout the Oslo years that it was a mistake to encourage Arafat to suppress basic rights, even if the aim--destroying Hamas--was legitimate. "There was a feeling that if Israel helped make Arafat into a strong leader--a dictator, really--that he could deliver on peace and security," Sharansky says now. "I said from the start that it would backfire." Sharansky's theories on peace and democracy are rooted in the misery of his Soviet experience: A democratic Palestinian leader, he insists, will try to deliver peace in order to win the support of his people. A dictator, by contrast, will make Israel its perennial enemy to deflect attention from his own corruption. "Dictators need enemies to rally their people. That was always the case in the Soviet Union. Dictators don't make peace," he says. In a plan he presented last month to Sharon, Sharansky suggests that the international community help Palestinians develop democratic institutions before Israel embarks on new peace talks."

This theory applies equally to the Bush dictatorship. ~brew
Common Sense // 12:42 PM


Common Sense // 12:37 PM


Tearful FBI Agent Apologizes To Sept. 11 Families and Victims
By Jeff Johnson Congressional Bureau Chief
May 30, 2002

Capitol Hill ( - In a memorandum written 91 days before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an FBI agent warned that Americans would die as a result of the bureau's failure to adequately pursue investigations of terrorists living in the country.

FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, Jr., who wrote the memo, led a four-year investigation into terrorist money laundering in the United States.

Wright began crying as he concluded his remarks at a Washington press conference Thursday.

"To the families and victims of September 11th - on behalf of [FBI Special Agents] John Vincent, Barry Carmody, and myself - we're sorry," Wright said before walking out of the room.Vincent and Carmody have also expressed a desire to expose information regarding alleged FBI missteps prior to Sept. 11.

Wright's June 9, 2001 "Mission Statement" memo warned that, "Knowing what I know, I can confidently say that until the investigative responsibilities for terrorism are transferred from the FBI, I will not feel safe.

"The FBI has proven for the past decade it cannot identify and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens at home and abroad," he continued. "Even worse, there is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI's International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected international terrorists living in the United States."

The summary of Wright's attempts to expose the alleged failures of the FBI's anti-terrorism efforts ended with a solemn conclusion.

"Unfortunately, more terrorist attacks against American interests - coupled with the loss of American lives - will have to occur before those in power give this matter the urgent attention it deserves," he wrote.

"Those in power" at the time the memo was written were Bush and Ashcroft.
Common Sense // 12:14 PM


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna"
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: The Daily Brew

Loved your post on the Blogspot about the Greens. I hold them and Ralph Nader personally responsible for the reprehensible state of affairs we see today. No one can argue that they handed the "election" to the Bushies. Even when newspapers printed the story about the Republicans paying for their campaign ads and Nader's response was "so what," these idiotic non-thinkers voted for this Benedict Arnold anyway.

Today there are numerous examples of manipulative right wing neo-Nazi types co-opting the "left" non-thinking knee-jerkers to do their dirty work for them. I think the upsurge of anti-semitism is a perfect example. They have managed to garner support for the "poor suicide bombers" who purposely target women and children in an insane attempt to achieve riches and virgins without end in the afterlife. These suicide bombers are not martyrs, nor are they victims of Israel. They are greedy, self-serving delusional fanatics who are manipulated by horrific Arab regimes who use them for the sole purpose of killing Jews, any Jews. To think Saudi Arabia is in any way an ally is just plain ignorance. Who in the Middle East mourned the victims of 9/11, and who celebrated their massacre?

People have become so confused about reality. Most of this confusion is spawned by a radical right wing media and a corrupt administration. The media is largely ignoring so many crucial issues from the administration's coup de tat to their role in 9/11. And they don't get it that this administration came in unfriendly toward Israel. The Bush patriarchs supported the Nazis in WWII, even after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, until their companies were divested under the trading with the enemy acts. Both Bush 41 and Reagan got heat for having old Nazis and neo-nazis in their inner circle and on their campaign committees. Give anyone a clue? Wake up and smell the coffee folks. These facts combined with the theft of our freedoms including speech and government oversight, and the use of 9/11 in the classic Nazi psychological warfare sense, should scare people more than it is. We are falling into the same trap the German people did in the '30's.

I am totally on board, Joanna. Many of my liberal buddies are very pro-Palistinian anti-Sharon types. But none of them can ever tell me what they would do differently to combat the daily murder of Isreali citizens, other than to capitulate. Arafat has proven beyond the shadow of any doubt that he has no intention of ever stopping the murder of innocent Isrealis. Were I Sharon, there is no chance I would allow the Palestinian's to have their own state for as long as Arafat were going to lead it.

One final thought to hopefully drive the point home, is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if Arafat were conducting the same types of terrorist operations against the US, Russia, France, England, China, Japan, or any other Western country as he is against Isreal, he would have been killed years ago?

Common Sense // 11:41 AM


Watching Frank Sesno on CSPAN moderate a panel discussion on terrorism with former national security advisors Sandy Berger, Zbignew Brzenzski, and Brent Sowcroft, I couldn't help but be struck by how utterly superior each of these men's analysis were when compared to Condi Rice's blustering lie that "we couldn't have imagined that they would turn the airplanes into missiles."

No one was happier than me to see a black women get a top job, but frankly, Condi just isn't up to it.

Common Sense // 11:36 AM


Friday, May 31, 2002:

The thing I hate about pro basketball is that it is rigged. That's right, the games are fixed. That makes it a show, just like pro-wrestling, instead of a sport.

Don't bother arguing with me, everyone involved, from the commentators, to the players, to the coaches, admits I'm right. No one even tries to hide the fact that the league calls fouls differently for certain players. They are very upfront about the fact that "superstars" get calls that other players don't get. The problem with this bias is that it changes the outcome of the games.

Tonight's Lakers/Kings game was a perfect example. With 20 seconds remaining, leading by one, LA is inbounding the ball. If the Lakers lose the ball, they will likely lose the game, ending the series and costing the league and the network millions. If the Lakers win the game, there will be a decisive game 7, and if the Laker's win game 7, the ratings for the championship will be much, much higher. So what happens? The "superstar" Kobi Bryant is having trouble getting free to take the inbounds pass. He throws an elbow into Mike Bibby's face, hitting him so hard Bibby is knocked to the ground with a bloody nose. Any harder and he would have knocked him unconscious. Do the refs call the foul? Of course not! David Stern has marketed the hell out of Kobi Bryant and the LA Lakers. If they need to get the ball in bounds at a crucial moment, well, Kobi could pull out a glock and blow the guy away and they wouldn't call a foul. Instead, Kobi catches the inbounds pass, is immediately fouled, and sinks two free throws to put the game out of reach.

You might like to watch pro basketball because the players make some truly amazing athletic moves. But don't kid yourself into thinking it is a sport.

Common Sense // 10:30 PM


This post is dedicated to the intellectually dishonest, elitist, selfish, pompous, pretentious, "Green Party" who said there was no difference, no difference! between the Republicans and the Democrats. I would like to thank Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Hero) for explaining the difference.

"We are the party of FDR and the New Deal. We are the party of JFK and the New Frontier. We are the party of LBJ and the Great Society. We are the party of the realized dream of Martin Luther King. We are the party of the unrealized dreams of Bobby Kennedy. We are the party of Social Security, of Medicare, of civil rights, of equality for women, of a green planet, of a peaceful planet. We are the party of the people."

To that I would add; they are the party of Tricky Dick and Watergate, They are the party of Ronald Reagan and 37 criminal convictions for malfeasence in office. They are the party of George Bush selling weapons to terrorists to fund and illegal war and genocide in Iran-Contra. They are the party of Enron, the Klu Klux Klan, the bombers of women's health clinics, every pollution spewing industry on the planet and permanent warfare.

The next time some Green tells me there is no difference between my party, the Democratic Party, and the theo-fascist, plutocratic thugs who are willing to destroy the world to further enrich the wealthiest people the world has ever known, well, lets just say there before it is over, there is a decent chance he is going to spill his $3 latte on his $60 Birkenstocks.
Common Sense // 3:32 PM


Thursday, May 30, 2002:

Kristof has an interesting piece in the NYTimes today, calling me a hypocrite because I was troubled with the racial profiling of blacks, pre-9/11. The point Kristof fails to see is that there is a fundemental difference between the war on drugs (which is what racial profiling was all about pre-9/11) and the war on terror. Terrorists are trying to kill innocent people, and drug users, be they white or black, are not. Even if one equates drug violence with terrorism (which is idiocy) it is still intellectually dishonest to treat pulling over black and hispanic motorists to bust them for drug crimes, and racially profiling terrorists, be they anti-government Tim McVeigh-types, anti-abortion bombers, or Arabs, as the same thing.

In the first place, the former has nothing to do with one's proclivity to commit the crime. Blacks, hispanics and whites all violate the nation's idiotic drug laws in roughly equal proportions. However, racially profiling blacks and hispanics for the enforement of those laws has resulted in huge disparities in their effects. This has allowed the morally bankrupt drug war to proceed, because it is being fought, in gross disproportion, against unpopular minorities. If whites smoking pot and eating ecstasy were harrassed, arrested, and incarcerated with the same zeal that blacks and hispanics are, at least 10 million suburban white kids would be behind bars or on probation, and the ecomony would be crippled. If the cops acted the same way in the suburbs as they do in the ghettos, the drug war would end in a month. The fact that it is only hispanics and blacks who have drug laws aggressively enforced against them means that it is only the blacks and hispanics who have had their families and neighborhoods destroyed by the war on drugs. That is why it makes sense to object to the racial profiling of blacks and hispanics.

Racially profiling terrorists, on the other hand, if done correctly, would be totally different. First, unlike the black and hispanic kids profiled in the drug war, we are at least looking for people who are actively trying to kill us. One must assume, therefore, that the racial group identified for targeting is actually more likely to commit terrorist acts. Thus, it would seen to make some sense for the FBI to infiltrate the local mosque that is giving money to Hamas. It would also make sense for the FBI to infilitrate the local gun show, where the local militia or the KKK might be loading up on weapons for a showdown with the ATF, or the Operation Rescue rally, where some unstable zealot takes the rhetoric to its natural conclusion and blows up a women's health clinic.

But something tells me that isn't what Ashcroft has in mind.
Common Sense // 11:27 PM


Just to be nice, my buddy Bartcop posted my banner today at the top of his site.

What a guy. You know how you have different "levels" of friends. Some people are nice to eat lunch with, but some of your friends will walk through fire for you. I'll tell you what, I don't agree with Bartcop all the time, but if there was ever a guy who you would want on your side when the chips were down, he is the one. Thanks pal, you are an inspiration.
Common Sense // 10:32 PM


Larry Klayman is giving the GOP some blowback.

JUDICIAL WATCH Chairman on CSPAN2 about FBI failures on 911.

The first 'active' FBI agent to come forward.

This was to be re-played by Cspan at 130pm Thursday but was canceled. They may replay it tonight.

A few highlights..

JW chairman says that they have been THREATENED!! by FBI, Ashcroft, and Cheney!

FBI Director Mueller was "not honest or candid with the American people".

Agent Robert Wright said the FBI thwarted his investigation into a terrorist who had connections with Osama Bin Laden.

The FBI has threatened agents with criminal prosecution for coming forward.

"Ashcroft has been covering up this information AND threatening the agents for the past 9 months".

JW's Larry Krugman is naming names and pulling no punches, he even uses the Treason word!!

I hope you have a high speed connection...

(there is a short delay at the beginning but trust me its worth the wait!)
Common Sense // 12:26 PM


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brigitte"
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: The Daily Brew
> Hi! Just a note to let you know how much I appreciate your hard work.
> Today, I made a small donation to help you with your expenses.
>I only wish you had a new article every day!!!
>Please keep up the good work! Regards, Brigitte

That was very sweet of you Brigitte.
Thanks a million, brew

To leave some spare change for The Daily Brew, Click on the case.

Common Sense // 12:21 PM


By Norman Solomon

By now, America's "war on terrorism" often seems to be a war of narcissism. The world view is so extremely self-engrossed -- and so widely accepted by news media -- that the movers and shakers of the Fourth Estate usually don't bat an eye even when rationales get positively loopy.

There was a remarkably myopic -- no, let's not beat around the bush -- there was a remarkably deranged moment on May 28 when Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke voiced concern about the increasing chances of war between the two nuclear-armed states. Why? Because, in order to confront India with additional ground forces, Pakistan was about to pull troops away from its border with Afghanistan and thus weaken efforts against Al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers.

Noting that Pakistani troops at the Afghan border have been "enormously, enormously helpful" to the U.S. government, Clarke worried aloud. "Attention and troops that cannot be focused there because they're focused elsewhere, that's a concern for us because we need as much assistance as possible in guarding that very porous border," she said. Those comments didn't raise many eyebrows in America's newsrooms.

Hello? While events are rapidly careening in the direction of a war that could bring nuclear disaster to the Indian subcontinent, the Bush administration contends that a brake must be applied -- because of the importance of killing Al Qaeda members this summer?

Although the consequences of any nuclear detonation in the conflict between India and Pakistan would be a horrific cataclysm, the predictable results are apt to get little advance media attention from major American outlets. In the current war of narcissism -- despite all the self-congratulatory froth after Sept. 11 about the global vistas flung open by the newly enlightened U.S. media -- the news world still revolves largely around the USA and Washington's line of the day.

But perhaps, under the news-you-can-use category, some angles can grab appreciable coverage: If a faraway nuclear exchange takes place, Americans who feel that Strontium-90 would not be appropriate for their current lifestyles should forget about consuming dairy products (that includes lattes and cappuccinos) for at least a few years. They would be wise to cultivate indoor gardens in a hurry. And they'd be well-advised to stay indoors with all windows tightly sealed.

Common Sense // 10:42 AM


"The documentation collated here demonstrates beyond doubt that innocent American civilians paid with their lives because high-level elements of the Bush administration engineered blocks on U.S. intelligence agencies in order to fulfil and protect another agenda. Unless a full-blown independent inquiry into this process is mounted soon, there is little doubt that more innocent Americans will pay with their lives again."

from the book "The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001" by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed a 24-year-old British political analyst and human rights activist based in London. He heads the Institute for Policy Research & Development and a Researcher at the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

Chapter 4 is available for
free online. Read it and judge for yourself.
Common Sense // 10:24 AM


"Two-thirds of Americans think the Bush administration is hiding something about what it knew before Sept. 11, while just over a fifth think the administration is 'telling the entire truth,' a CBS News poll released Tuesday said...Almost half think Democrats' questions to the White House about its handling of the Sept. 11 attacks are appropriate, and a third disagreed...By a narrow margin, 43 percent to 30 percent felt the Bush administration is hiding something the public needs to know." more

If I am reading these poll results correctly, they mean there are millions of Republicans out there who believe that Bush is hiding something concerning the biggest crime in US history, yet who STILL don't want the Democrats asking questions. I imagine these are the same "bi-partisan patriots" who pushed so hard to turn the Whitewater investigation into an investigation of Clinton's sex life. When does it become appropriate to point out that these people put the interests of the Republican party ahead of the interests of the United States every time? When does it become appropriate to point out that in so doing, these people are un-American?
Common Sense // 10:16 AM


The incomparable Gene Lyons writes:

Whatever its shortcomings, the Clinton administration took Osama bin Laden seriously. If it failed to capture or kill him, it wasn't for lack of trying. Spending on anti-terrorist measures more than doubled. Clinton devoted many speeches to the problem, including a major address to the U.N. General Assembly upstaged by Congress's same-day release of his grand jury testimony in the Lewinsky fiasco. Following the 1998 African embassy bombings, he held cabinet-level meetings "nearly weekly" to direct the fight against bin Laden. "'Candidly speaking," Army intelligence specialist Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick told the Washington Post on Jan. 19, "' I didn't detect that kind of focus' in the Bush administration. 'That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact.'"

It's obvious the Washington bureaucracy got the message loud and clear. As the un-Clinton, Bush didn't want to hear about al-Qaida. Newsweek reports that Attorney General John Ashcroft had an "extraordinary confrontation" with then-FBI director Louis Freeh, informing him that drugs, violent crime and child pornography were the agency's new priorities, not counter-terrorism. Agents in Minneapolis, who correctly believed they had an al-Qaida suspect in custody, met so many bureaucratic roadblocks they joked that bin Laden must have infiltrated FBI headquarters. The Bush administration's determination to avoid a probe of intelligence failures appears to have less to do with protecting national security than hiding its own blunders.

sorry, no link to the rest of it.

Common Sense // 10:09 AM


Just imagine Bush's words coming from mouth of President Gore

Then imagine the news of the past two weeks about reports coming into different parts of the federal government about the likelihood of Osama bin Laden launching a major assault in the United States. Imagine an FBI agent informing Gore's attorney general about Middle Eastern students in flight schools not interested in learning how to take off or land. Imagine earlier intelligence reports projecting a new terrorist strategy of flying airliners into buildings.

Hours into the news story -- right about the point when the Bush administration launched its hurt-feelings response -- a Republican congressman would have introduced an impeachment resolution. Several might have been trampled in the stampede to get to the House floor.

By the next day, about at the point when the Bush administration started explaining that nobody had ever provided detailed specifics on the planning of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Gore White House would have vanished under a blizzard of faxes generated by talk radio.

Common Sense // 10:06 AM


The US is the only industrialized country on the planet that can't afford a national health care program -- we spend more on our military than every other country in the world COMBINED. But hey, the price of "freedom" is eternal debt - er, vigilance.

The United States and its allies - NATO, South Korea and Japan - possess a vast qualitative military advantage over any other nation or group nations in the world. And while such superiority doesn't come cheap, when compared to the rest of the world the amount the United States alone spends on its military is simply staggering. Consider the following... At $396 billion, the U.S. military budget request for FY'03 is more than six times larger than that of Russia, the second largest spender. It is more than 26 times as large as the combined spending of the seven countries traditionally identified by the Pentagon as our most likely adversaries (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) [a.k.a. the 'official' Axis of Evil]. It is more than the combined spending of the next 25 nations. The United States and its close allies spend more than the rest of the world combined, accounting for more than two-thirds of all military spending. Together they spend over 39 times more than the seven rogue states. ("Allies" includes NATO, Australia, Japan and South Korea.) The seven potential "enemies," Russia and China together spend $117 billion, less than one-third (30%) the U.S. military budget. Global military spending has declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $812 billion in 2000. During that time the U.S. share of total military spending rose from 31% to 36% in Fiscal Year 2000.

World Military Budgets in $Billions

United States -- $396.1
Russia -- 60.0
China -- 42.0
Japan -- 40.4
United Kingdom -- 34.0
Saudi Arabia -- 27.2
France -- 25.3
Germany -- 21.0
Brazil -- 17.9
India -- 15.6
Italy -- 15.5
South Korea -- 11.8
Iran -- 9.1
Israel -- 9.0
Taiwan -- 8.2
Canada -- 7.7
Pakistan -- 2.6
Kuwait -- 2.6
Colombia -- 2.1
Egypt -- 2.1
Vietnam -- 1.8
Iraq -- 1.4
North Korea -- 1.3
Libya -- 1.2
Phillipines -- 1.1
Syria -- 0.8
Cuba 0.7
Sudan -- 0.6

Common Sense // 9:56 AM


You might want to consider buying a copy of The Bush Dyslexicon from my good friends at

Here are some of the reviews:

"Stinging in almost every line, this perceptive book reveals much about the capabilities of our new president, and about the unfairness of the process that exalted him." -- Lawrence E. Walsh, independent counsel, Iran-Contra Investigation

"This is simply the finest, most comprehensive and masterfully annotated collection of Bushisms to date: a clear reminder to never 'misunderestimate' the ignorance, intellectual laziness, and sheer meanness of our first unelected president." -- Barbara Ehrenreich
Common Sense // 9:49 AM


Court-appointed commander
May 24, 2002

"We know now that the Bush administration received numerous warnings of impending terrorist attacks, some arriving almost on the eve of the Sept. 11 disaster, and did next to nothing. Well, it did slip word to John Ashcroft, our faith-based attorney general, and Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial aircraft. Faith has its limitations. When Bill Clinton got a warning in 1999, he ordered an attack on Osama Bin Laden's training camp. Congressional Republicans accused him of picking on Osama for political reasons. Trent Lott hadn't developed an interest in national unity at the time."
Common Sense // 9:44 AM


Heir to the Holocaust
By Toby Rogers

"while President Bush publicly embraced the community of holocaust survivors in Washington last spring, he and his family have been keeping a secret from them for over 50 years about Prescott Bush, the president's grandfather. According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. In fact, President Bush himself is an heir to these profits from the holocaust which were placed in a blind trust in 1980 by his father, former president George Herbert Walker Bush."
Common Sense // 9:40 AM


Wednesday, May 29, 2002:

Since Enron Corp. plunged into bankruptcy six months ago, George Bush's defenders have said the administration's refusal to bail out the sinking energy trader is proof of Bush's integrity, given that Enron's Chairman Kenneth Lay was one of Bush's top financial backers.

The story line has been that all of Ken Lay’s millions couldn’t buy George W. Bush. For that reason, Enron has been called a financial scandal, not a political scandal.

Growing evidence, however, shows that this Bush-can’t-be-bought story line isn’t true.

As Enron’s crisis worsened through the first nine months of the Bush presidency, Ken Lay got Bush’shelp in three principal ways:

Bush personally joined the fight against imposing caps on the soaring price of electricity in California at a time when Enron was artificially driving up the price of electricity by manipulating supply. Bush’s rear-guard action against price caps bought Enron and other energy traders extra time to gouge hundreds of millions of dollars from California’s consumers.

Bush granted Lay broad influence over the administration’s energy policies, including the choice of key regulators to oversee Enron’s businesses. The chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was suddenly replaced in 2001 after he began to delve into Enron’s complex derivative-financing schemes.

Bush had his National Security Council staff organize an administration-wide campaign to pressure the Indian government to accommodate Enron, which wanted to sell its generating plant in Dabhol, India, for$2.3 billion. Bush administration pressure on India over the Dabhol plant continued even after Sept. 11, when India’s support was needed for the war on terrorism. The administration’s threats against India on Enron’s behalf didn’t stop until Nov. 8.
Common Sense // 11:23 PM


Two cows standing in a field...first says to the other: " bout that mad cow's disease..scary huh?"..and the second cow turns and says "Yeah..good thing I am a chicken..."
Common Sense // 10:23 PM


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:23 PM
Subject: Why the long silence?

>You connected the O'Neill dots (duh, NYTimes), and nothing has followed since 5/20. Are you being muzzled?

Thanks for writing, Kay. I haven't been muzzled, I'm just getting used to blogging. Your letter will be the first I post. Check it out at Keep them coming.
Common Sense // 9:42 PM


"George W. Bush spoke at the American Cemetery in Normandy on Memorial Day and was the stiffest person in the place.

It would have been much more appropriate for Bush to speak at the grave of an AWOL National Guardsman who got killed in a Memorial Day weekend drunk-driving accident."
Barry Crimmins
Common Sense // 9:35 PM


Is the FBI Penetrated?
Whitley Strieber

"FBI officials, in defending the bureau, have been maintaining for weeks that the Phoenix and Minneapolis cases were handled by different parts of the headquarters staff, and that the problem was largely a lack of communication. However, this is not true.

In fact, Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams sent his memo about terrorists in flight schools (the memo that was supposedly lost) to David Frasca, the head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit in Washington on July 10. Frasca was also the key liaison in Washington for the Minnesota FBI field office in its failed effort to get permission to search Zacharia Moussaoui’s computer. Rowley has alleged that Frasca rewrote the Minnesota office’s warrant applications, removing crucial intelligence about Moussaoui’s terrorist connections, thus insuring that the legal office to which the requests were sent would reject them for insufficient evidence.

This does not look like incompetence. It looks like a very competent act, one that was designed to derail the Moussaoui investigation in the crucial months before 9/11. Combined with the claimed loss of the memo from Phoenix, it is appalling. It suggests that the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit is either run by a traitor or controlled by traitors. If that is not the case, and there is some other explanation for the lapse, then the problem that caused it needs to be corrected immediately, because this country is in immediate danger and Mr. Frasca’s office is right out on the front line of our defense.

Apparently, Mr. Frasca is still actively supervising the Radical Fundamentalist Unit. His staff is still in place, and still responsible for what are arguably the most crucial investigations the FBI is now conducting.

It’s no wonder that our government’s terrorism warnings are always so vague.
Common Sense // 9:22 PM


I've always wondered. If all John Walker Lindh had to do to penetrate Al Qaeda was show up and ask to join, why didn't the CIA do so years ago?
Common Sense // 9:22 PM


I have to wonder at the astounding silence from those who frothed and rattled ceaselessly for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Isn't it inconsistent and blatantly dishonest not to be calling for an investigation of the sitting administration? more
Common Sense // 1:12 PM


This site is powered by Blogger because Blogger rocks!

Visit the main page and read email policy at email us at