Replies: 36 Comments
Comment #1: Amos said on 4/21/06 @ 11:47am ET...
John Poindexter, Elliot Abrahms, Otto Reich, (isn’t he working in some capacity for the Bush administration) Manucher Ghorbanifar and Dick Cheney all in the same sentence. Imagine that. This is yet another development to be carefully watched. These people like to act outside the law, as does our current leader. The tasks are at hand and yet so many people are unaware. Subpoena power is so rightly needed. November is not that far away and that seems to be our only hope. Subpoena power
Comment #2: unspun said on 4/21/06 @ 12:22pm ET...
Mr. Conyers, It is deeply disturbing to see the key players of Iran-Contra and the tactics of Watergate being resurrected by the current administration. I continue to be amazed at the level of tolerance of scoundrels in government by the American people.
I’ve just finished writing to my senators, my congressman and to Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services & Foreign Relations Committees regarding Iran and Iraq. Too many of our leaders, and too many of us were fooled by the manipulation of the Iraq pre-war Intelligence. Shame on them and on us if we allow it to happen again.
It is encouraging to see that Senator Reid is speaking out for a stronger diplomatic effort regarding Iran. (See link below). I hope the Democrats and maybe even some Republicans (but I doubt they are capable of putting country before party) will stand up to the neo-cons.
http://www.firedoglake.com/
OT: tahoebasha1, re comment #51 in the last post—Thank you for the link to Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo!
Comment #3: DTW 06 said on 4/21/06 @ 1:06pm ET...
The names have changed but the game seems real familiar. Is Manucher Ghorbanifar the Iranian version of Achmed Chalabi?
Comment #4: Ohiodem1 said on 4/21/06 @ 1:13pm ET...
No, DTW 06. He is the Iranian version of Curveball.
Comment #5: Alma said on 4/21/06 @ 1:22pm ET...
DTW,
That was my second thought. The first one being that our government never seems to learn by its mistakes. Whether its arming Saddam, Iran Contras, or rebel Afghanis during Russias reign there. The list just goes on and on with them arming or using intelligence from/with unstable people and governments. I guess the learning curve is different for people with money and power.
Comment #6: Ohiodem1 said on 4/21/06 @ 1:31pm ET...
Here is something interesting:
"Source: UPI
Expert sees refineries as key to gas woes
Date: Friday, April 21, 2006 8:45:55 AM EST
WASHINGTON, April 21 (UPI) -- A California energy expert sees a worsening supply-and-demand balance as a major reason for skyrocketing gas prices
Severin Borenstein, a director of the University of California Energy Institute, observed an almost 11-cent hike in five hours for unleaded gasoline at a Shell station and said: "The oil side is one piece of this. The refining side is another piece of this."
Oil prices are soaring, with the price of crude at more than $70 a barrel, working out to more than $1.70 a gallon, more than half the cost of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline. Then comes the cost of refining, about twice the average levels over the past five years.
"What's going on is just a continued reflection of the worsening supply-and-demand balance," Borenstein told The Washington Post. "We have not been building refineries, demand continues to grow and supply is not keeping up with it."
--
Copyright 2006 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
--"
Now, let me ask you this; If you can build a state of the art refinery with externalities minimized (externalities are pollution, noise, etc.) for about $5 B, and the oil company earned $36 B in just one year, why don't the oil companies decide to put that enormous store of capital to work and build 5 large refineries, two geographically dispersed on both the East and West coasts, and one in the Gulf? They cannot claim they are too poor to afford them. Building capacity should be a good investment in increased profit potential for the forseeable future. The shareholders should demand this of their Boards of Directors, and oil company management.
The refiners will use the excuse that the environmental wackos won't let them build refineries.
This is an excuse. The bottom line appears to be that if they can squeeze existing refining capacity to the max, and that keeps prices high, then there is no need to invest in capacity.
Another dirty little secret is that in some cases, refining is outsourced, in that refined products produced elsewhere in low wage, low environmental regulated places can refine and ship refined products into our ports, and this has the effect of making some additional capacity un-necessary, allowing the refiners to have it both ways, they can complain about the environmental wackos, and say that refining capacity would only be there if the wackos would only let them. They then get to claim that we are at the edge of capacity, and blaming it on someone else.
JC - Why doesn't Congress explore this as part of an energy policy review? Oh, yes, please see if you can get Cheney to release the notes, transcripts, working papers, and members of the group who created the Cheney/Bush "Energy" policy.
Comment #7: tahoebasha1 said on 4/21/06 @ 1:35pm ET...
#2 - Unspun
You're welcome! Before everyone gets heavy into the current topic -- take a little break for yourselves and enjoy an adaptation of the Beetles' song "The Eggman -- Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo!" It is absolutely one of the best I've seen yet. You're gonna' love it!
Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo
Comment #8: Ron said on 4/21/06 @ 2:21pm ET...
After the Hurricanes ,anyone that sold any building products ,or other supplies for a few dollars more than what they'd "Normally" cost, were fined for price gouging!
Why not ,for example EXON, who made 10 BILLION in profits in one quarter last year?
With oil, it seems like we are dealing with"MOST FAVOURED INDUSTRY" I wonder why!
Comment #9: JC said on 4/21/06 @ 2:54pm ET...
Amos (#1) you are most certainly right. Otto Reich was a part of that crew as well.
DTW and OD1, if Raw Story is right about Ghorbanifar, he is more like a Chalabi and Curveball all-in-one.
Comment #10: Genghis Khan said on 4/21/06 @ 3:56pm ET...
#6
The biggest problem is "NIMBY". Do you want to live near a refinery? No matter how much you remediate, they are filthy things to live near. Just ask the folks in Benicia or Pittsburg California (SF Bay Area) how much they like the refineries...
Comment #11: Ohiodem1 said on 4/21/06 @ 4:44pm ET...
GK - No one "likes" a refinery. Unfortunately, refineries are a fact of life if you want to power your vehicles and use plastics. Our economy (and the world's) would collapse without them.
No refinery in the USA is less than 30 years old. Refinery technology has improved over the years, but the awl bidness does not want to put state of the art air and water pollution controls on refineries. They want the environmental regulations completely gutted before commiting to new capacity. Even if state of the art pollution controls are designed in and built, the cost may be in the neighborhood of $1 B, but it will be ammortized over the 50 to 100 year life of the facility. Assuming a 50 year life and a $1 B investment in proper pollution controls, the ammortized cost is about $50 M per year, an easily absorbed cost. Consider that a refinery can process about 100,000 barrels per day, 365 days a year. The actual cost on that basis looks to be negiligible. The industry just does not want to do it.
Another approach would be to gut, then rebuild a state of the art facility on an existing refinery location, with improved pollution controls.
There ain't no easy solution, but a comprehensive energy policy, based on the two pronged approach of real conservation plus real movement to alternative fuels is the correct way to proceed.
As I have stated many times in Conyers Blog, I believe the current adminstration's "energy" policy is to keep the price of West Texas Intermediate Crude above $60.00 per barrel. From that standpoint, the policy is a rousing success.
Unfortunatley, the current energy policy increases the price of every thing you and I buy, by adding significant cost to transportation, raw materials, heating, processing of manfufactured goods, on and on.
When it causes a trucker $600 to fill his rig, and he has to do it every other day, of course it will find its way into your cost of living.
Plastics, anti-freeze, lubricants, gasoline, all kinds of chemicals, fabrics, food, virtually every thing that we do, eat or use is impacted by the awl bidness. We cannot say no to all refineries, but we should be able to insist on world best practices in their constuction and operation. It should not be a situation of we cannot live with them or we cannot live without them.
New facilities geographically spread out, will reduce the effects of significant storm damage taking out half or our transportation, extraction and refining network. It will also increase the security of the system of supply.
I agree that no one likes refineries, we just cannot survive as a nation without them.
Comment #12: Nolip said on 4/21/06 @ 4:52pm ET...
Refineries, reshimineries...alternate fuels and more sophisticated technology to build the transporation of the 21st century to replace the combustion engine...the only ones making out on the oil deal are those who "refine" the oil...Ford just reported a billion dollar loss so what we have here is BushCo leaving an industry unchecked because that industry was instrumental in getting Bush into office...talk about the abuse of power...and while we're on the topic...heres another one of the lies that was fed to the American people back in '02 as BushCo was preparing for a war Bush intended to wage with or without Congressional approval...
"Appearing this afternoon on MSNBC’s Hardball, White House Counselor Dan Barlett adamantly denied that anyone in the administration claimed that the Iraq war would lead to lower gas prices. The transcript:
MATTHEWS: [W]e’ve been struck by higher gas prices. That was another promise made, that this war would help us get cheaper gas —
BARTLETT: I don’t think —
MATTHEWS: None of these promises come through.
BARTLETT: That’s not correct, Chris. The president or no one else ever said that this war was going to result in cheaper gas prices…
MATTHEWS: Ok, so just to make it official, Dan, no one in the administration has ever said that we would have cheaper gas because of war in Iraq, just to make it official?
BARTLETT: I don’t recall anybody ever saying that, Chris.
As Matthews noted later in the broadcast, Laurence Lindsey – President Bush’s senior economic advisor at the time — argued in 2002 that the Iraq war would increase oil supplies and lower prices. From the Washington Times, 9/19/02:
As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.” But he quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.”
“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.
Bartlett is a talented spinmeister but facts are stubborn things. "
Dan Bartlett Caught In A Lie: ‘No One Ever Said The War Would Result In Cheaper Gas Prices’
Comment #13: Nolip said on 4/21/06 @ 4:55pm ET...
Manucher Ghorbanifar will go down in history along with the Mortimer Dingaflutus and Poindexter Fummernucker...
Comment #14: Ohiodem1 said on 4/21/06 @ 5:23pm ET...
Nolip - The trucking and airline industry are having a hell of a time due to fuel cost as well.
So there you have it. Cars, planes, trains, trucks. All at the mercy of the interconnectedness of our economy with oil.
I think we are stuck with this oil economy for at least 20 more years, and likely more. We should endeavor to fix it the best we, as a society can.
The Bush energy policy has a large dose of nucular energy as well. We cannot just walk away from the basis of our economy, as much as we would like to. When we build facilities, and we will have to, we have a right to demand that world best practices be used.
And if we get a world best facility in one location, it should not be given clean air and water credits, that can be sold to another facility so that that facility actually gets a "licence" to pollute their own neighborhood, which can cover several cities or states.
The Bush admin policy of swapping pollution credits favors new facilites, at the expense of the environment in older facilites and the cities around them. This is how the Bush admin can say that on a average basis that pollution is down, while at the same time instutionalizing and legalizing more pollution in some locations.
Comment #15: Reed31463 said on 4/21/06 @ 5:27pm ET...
This Feb 20, 2005 article places the price of oil at over $45/bbl. At close yesterday April 20th, 2006, oil was $74.45. Therefore the price has increased 65% in 14 months. You can't get blood from a turnip.
Damaged Oilfields?
Once difficult to recover oil is bypassed with water, it essentially becomes unrecoverable.
It is rumored that Ghawar oilfield in Saudi Arabia, the single largest in the world, is now producing 40% water from some well heads. When this field starts to go into decline, the impact will be significant. To understand the size of this super-giant oilfield and the impact it has on world oil supplies, it is necessary to state Ghawar's proven reserves with reference to global proven reserves. Ghawar makes up 1/8th of the total world's reserves.
But unfortunately, ARAMCO is very secretive with information. One of the missions of Brewster-Jennings, besides tracking WMD development in Iraq and Iran, was to verify ARAMCO's data.
Ahh, but Valerie Plame was just a desk jockey, so no harm done there.
Simmons International briefing to CSIS
BTW, CSIS is a conservative think tank with members from PNAC and Congress, to include Henry Kissenger, Ziebnew Brzezinski, R. James Woolsey, and Robin Nesbitt.
This is the correct link from the previous thread where I messed up and duplicated my link. Oh well, I guess that means I am human and can admit my mistake. This link requires powerpoint. I looked at the HTML link, but it made no sense.
Oil Production History & Depletion This link requires Powerpoint.
Most
countries are in production decline. The US production has declined every year since 1970 and Saudi Arabia may have already passed peak production. Iran, though still a net exported, is probably at their "second" peak, and is now entering their final decline. Iraq is the country with the largest potential to increase production capacity.
1956 Research Paper, Page 32 of 57.
Note the uncanny accuracy of US crude oil production. Also note, the estimate for global crude oil production peak assumed consumption and production rates would remain unchanged. However, in 1970's there were three separate artificial cuts in production. This has affected the timing on the arrival of the global peak production.
However, with proven mathematical accuracy, I put my trust in M. King Hubbert's original year 2000 peak. Then I modified it by adding the number of years of the oil embargoes: 5. That puts the global oil peak occurring in 2005.
This information has been known since 1956. Hubbert also offered his vision for a way out of the hydrocarbon energy trap. On page 38 of 57 he suggests converting coal to liquid petroleum products. (Why is research just starting?)
Nuclear energy is also covered. Read this research paper first, starting on page 39 of 57, before listening to anyone describe the number of years of potential fissionable energy available. It is not 50 to 100 years, as some would have you believe.
In conclusion,
you must absolutely read the Timeline Perspective starting on page 52. For 1956, the accuracy, estimates, calculations, and philosophical insight is truly amazing. Advice mankind has ignored. Now fifty years later, we teeter on the brink of fascism and we are nowhere nearer a solution then we were in 1956. Where has the time gone? Why did it have to be this way? Thank you America.
Comment #16: Ohiodem1 said on 4/21/06 @ 5:30pm ET...
Wow! That was off topic.
Back on topic. It is very good that Congress is paying attention to who the administration trots out as the expert on all that is going on inside the borders and in the heads of the Mullahs (or MOO-LAHS) to the Bush admin.
If Congress had paid attention to these kinds of details, and forced the admin to actually show a logical cause for war with Iraq, we might not have had a war with Iraq. A 1,000,000,000,000.00 (0ne trillion dollars) and 2400 fatal casualties, 20,000 non fatal casualties war. Thank you Representative Conyers for helping Congress pay attention this time.
Comment #17: Genghis Khan said on 4/21/06 @ 6:00pm ET...
#11
I'm right with you, OD. But the fact is it's harder to build a refinery than just doing it. Part of the reason none have been built for ~30 years is NIMBY (perfectly understandable).
It takes more than adherence to regulation to get a refinery placed in someone's town.
Now, if a refiner were to undertake some good PR and be totally transparent to the public with regards to regulations and safety... but that's not bloody likely either.
Comment #18: Genghis Khan said on 4/21/06 @ 6:10pm ET...
Interesting information regarding the "facts being fixed around the policy".
Comment #19: Reed31463 said on 4/21/06 @ 7:48pm ET...
This is all inter-related: energy to support our lifestyle and those that want to control the energy supply, our lives and the world.
Iran is the second largest oil exporter and the last piece of the oil "horseshoe of endowment." They can see the "wrongness" in complete oil dependence, such as the position we are in now.
Scott Ritter has a few words about Iran's nuclear program. The first four paragraph's make sense, after that his republicant programming takes over and starts babbling nonsense.
Building new refineries is not a solution. Oil supplies around the world are tight, and it is not for a lack of refining capacity. It is due to the fact that demand has outpaced supply.
When half of the worlds supply of oil is gone, the rate that "earl" will come outta da ground will fall off at 3% per year.
What will happen to demand? Will it drop? No, it will continue to climb.
We are hooked like junkies needing our oil fix, only the "earl" companies are the pushers in this deal. With Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and Dubai "under our wing", Iraq under military control...sort of; Iran becomes the last piece of the puzzle for control of the "horseshoe of endowment."
Once control of the largest oil producing countries are secured, the "earl" companies will have their ultimate dream. A monopoly on the "drug of choice" that the world has come to depend upon: oil.
Because Iran is developing their future energy infrastructure, this goes against the neo-con agenda of control. It will free Iran from the clutches of big oil.
Let there be no doubt, this is a matter of supply and demand. There is no magic supply waiting to be developed. It's done and Iran is just a piece of their puzzle.
They continue down this road hoping to hang on long enough until the chaos starts. And it is starting people. One of the guests on Lou Dobbs the other night asked the correct last question. Where are those people that made up the Office of Special Plans? They are still behind the scenes peddling influence.
Hypothetical: Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted of war crimes? What happens to all the beneficiaries of these guys: big oil, main stream media, military-industrial complex, and investment bankers? Their money influence will still exist. They live to corrupt again?
Comment #20: Nolip said on 4/21/06 @ 9:09pm ET...
Bush really needs to be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors NOW before he's allowed to screw up anything else...
"The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said according to CBS.
Tyler Drumheller, who headed CIA covert operations in Europe during the run-up to the Iraq war, said intelligence opposing administration claims of a WMD threat came from a top Iraqi official who provided the U.S. spy agency with other credible information. "
Ex-CIA agent says WMD intelligence ignored Ex-CIA agent says WMD intelligence ignored
Comment #21: Nolip said on 4/21/06 @ 9:12pm ET...
More from the article cited in #20...sounds like the Downing Street Memo...
""We said: 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said: 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change'," added Drumheller, whose CIA operation was assigned the task of debriefing the Iraqi official.
He was the latest former U.S. official to accuse the White House of setting an early course toward war in Iraq and ignoring intelligence that conflicted with its aim.
CBS said the CIA's intelligence source was former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and that former CIA Director George Tenet delivered the information personally to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top White House officials in September 2002. They rebuffed the CIA three days later.
"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," the former CIA agent told CBS. "
Comment #22: ljm said on 4/22/06 @ 12:50am ET...
Josh Marshall seems to think Mr. G had something to do with the Niger forgeries. I suspect Cheney relies on this group more than we could imagine. Wyoming is now the United Halliburton Emirates with all their natural gas dealings. Iran is one of the top countries with natural gas, which the oil companies want to make into diesel and have be in this century what oil was in the last. They want to litter our coastline with their eyesore terminals. It's all been about oil and natural gas. I'm waiting for Adanan Kashogi (sp) to show up next.
Comment #23: Nolip said on 4/22/06 @ 5:33am ET...
While Bush goes forward with his agenda of death and destruction, first Iraq and now his evil eye is on Iran with his finger on the nuclear trigger, he forgets those who are hurting back home...the ones he's hurt by creating the debacle we know as Iraq.
"WASHINGTON - The number of U.S. Army soldiers who took their own lives increased last year to the highest total since 1993, despite a growing effort by the Army to detect and prevent suicides.
In 2005, a total of 83 soldiers committed suicide, compared with 67 in 2004, and 60 in 2003 — the year U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq."
Army suicides hit highest level since 1993
"For most Americans, today’s rising gasoline prices are an annoyance, not a serious financial hardship.
Then there are people like Kenneth and Edith Taylor of Baltimore, who already struggle to make their monthly social security checks of less than $1,700 last by cooking casseroles and soups at home instead of eating out and forgoing new clothes for as long as possible. Now, with neighborhood pump prices averaging $2.85 a gallon, the Taylors say they simply cannot afford the 80-mile roundtrip to visit their daughter more than once a month."
Rising gas prices have heavy impact on poor
Comment #24: Truth_in_action said on 4/22/06 @ 8:32am ET...
Protesters blocked Bush from attending a private meeting last night at Stanford University's Hoover Institute. The meeting had to be moved to George Schultz' home, who had been planning a reception following the meeting anyway.
I have not heard much reported about this story. Read about it here as reported by CBS5.com, a local TV channel in the San Fran, Oakland and San Jose area.
Comment #25: Truth_in_action said on 4/22/06 @ 10:01am ET...
Off topic, but with regard to the 700 ton blast in Nevada, a lawsuit was filed on Thursday 4-20-06 to block the planned detonation. Thanks to clg_news@legitgov.org for heads up on this and the article above about the Hoover Institute protest.
The Western Shoshone tribe and a group of Utah downwinders on Thursday filed a lawsuit in federal court in Las Vegas to prevent a 700-ton explosion scheduled June 2 at the Nevada Test Site. This blast, which is named Devine Strake, is planned on Shoshone nation land.
This Western Shoshone Defense Project website has some information on its home page about Devine Strake. Of particular interest is a link to the Nuclear Federation Project, a project with the Federation of American Scientists.
Comment #26: Truth_in_action said on 4/22/06 @ 10:51am ET...
Addition to Nolip's #20 and #21 post - the CBS 60 Minutes website has an article about Tyler Drumheller, the highest CIA official in Europe, who states that accurate information that Iraq did not have WMD was given and purposefully ignored by this Administration or that regime change was now what they were headed for and the information was instead moot. Mr. Drumheller will speak on 60 Minutes with 60 Minutes' correspondent Ed Bradley on Sunday, April 23 at 7 p.m. ET/PT, as reported on the CBS website. It will be Mr. Druheller's first televised interview. Should be VERY interesting! Heads up to record this if you will not be home to watch.
Comment #27: Nolip said on 4/22/06 @ 11:52am ET...
Lest we forget...this is from www.downingstreetmemo.com...
"Today is April 22, 2006
352 days since congressional request for investigation.
The Downing Street "Memo" is actually meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 it was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth behind how the Iraq war began. This site is intended to provide information about the Downing Street Memo and how it fits in with numerous other documents and events that relate to the Bush administration’s march to war.
These other items include:
Additional leaked UK government documents that provide further evidence of the illegality of the invasion, the search for justification at the UN, and the lack of planning for the aftermath
(The New York Times has just posted corroborating coverage of the latest leaked document, known as the "White House Memo" from the January 31, 2003 Bush/Blair White House meeting.)
Information from the US and UK defense departments that indicates the Iraq war began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion
John Bolton’s reported abuse of his authority to spy on and discredit UN officials who stood in the way of US policy
The Bush administration’s smear campaign against Joseph Wilson in retribution for his challenging Bush’s infamous claims about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa. (On October 28, 2005, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, Wilson’s wife.)
These incidents are the tip of a very big iceberg. From cherry-picked intelligence to a criminal lack of planning for the war’s aftermath; from no-bid contracts for reconstruction to character assassination for anyone who dares to question the premises of the war—the Bush administration has perpetrated what is now being called the most egregious foreign policy misstep in our history.
A majority of the American people now believes that the president intentionally misled the country into a war that has now cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. The only question that remains is: will he and his administration be held accountable?"
==============
Sounds a lot like this from CBS news...finally the MSM are "getting it" but now we will wait for BushCo to "shoot" this messenger while BushCo prepares to nuke Iran...SOMEBODY STOP THE LUNATIC IN THE WHITE HOUSE, PLEASE! CONGRESS, ARE YOU LISTENING!? ARE YOU CONNECTING THE DOTS? BUSH IGNORED 9/11 INTEL...HE IGNORED WMD INTEL...HE DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT INTEL...HE ONLY CARES ABOUT BEING LITTLE LORD FAUNTLEROY AND KILLING PEOPLE ON THE PLANET!================
"Drumheller, who retired last year, says the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source. The source was Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal.
When CIA Director George Tenet delivered this news to the president, the vice president and other high ranking officials, they were excited — but not for long.
"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," says Drumheller. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
They didn't want any additional data from Sabri because, says Drumheller: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
A Spy Speaks Out
Comment #28: Nolip said on 4/22/06 @ 12:01pm ET...
Follow up to #27...The part of the chief policy maker, LITTLE LORD FAUNTLEROY, is portrayed by KING GEORGE BUSH who, like LORD FAUNTLEROY, after he discovered his access to power and wealth did great favors for his friends while killing off (both literally and figuratively speaking) anyone who disagreed (and even some who agreed) with his policies. The part of the toy soldiers are played by real ones and Iran will soon fill in for Iraq as the locale for King George's next starring role as DESPOTIC DECIDER (subtitled A NUT IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS WORTH ITS WEIGHT IN PLUTONIUM).
Comment #29: Truth_in_action said on 4/22/06 @ 12:19pm ET...
CNN online had a story Wednesday 4/12/06 that Mexican soldiers seized 5 1/2 tons of cocaine from a commercial plane arriving from Venezuela. You can read that story here.
An investigative reporter has details about that same story in an article dated 4/21/06. Read that here.
Comment #30: koryannder said on 4/22/06 @ 2:52pm ET...
An interesting development - If Hugo Chavez can get OPEC to grant a stable baseline price of $50.00 a barrel for crude, it will make the Venezuelan "Heavy Crude," which is not a contender at $36.00 a barrel, into a premier source - and insure that the planet has enough petroleum for the next 200 years! (And reduce the price at the pump to a stable $2.50.) Of course, Exxon's obscene profit margin would be a little lower, but who cares? I wonder - when will Bu$h decide that Venezuela is part of the "Axis of evil?"
Comment #31: Truth_in_action said on 4/22/06 @ 4:33pm ET...
Kory, #30, I guess these stories are like old news, but they're in line with your last sentence. The Washington Post put out this article about the U.S. and Venezuela and the power struggles between the two by William M. Arkin dated November 3, 2005.
This BBC article from July 2005 talks about how Venezuela is training their population to help defend itself.
I guess I just feel like saying... "Can't we all get along?" Thank you, Rodney King, for a saying that is forever timeless.
Comment #32: keck said on 4/22/06 @ 4:38pm ET...
Legalizing, once again, industrial hemp could help with our oil, timber, and chemical demands.
From hemp comes fuels, twine, paper, plastics that are ten times stronger than steel, particle boards, omega 3, 6, GLA, fabrics for clothing and other uses, flour and on and on and on.
Industrial hemp contains a max of 0.3% THC which if smoked would cause a bad headache and stomach ache. It is, in this country only, listed with marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. And that is only because politicians are beholden to big oil, timber, and chemical greed mongers.
Check for reruns of a documentary or a DVD on Free Speech TV called "Hemp And the Rule of Law" by Kevin Balling that reports the above info.
Comment #33: Truth_in_action said on 4/22/06 @ 5:17pm ET...
I stumbled on this Bradblog post about our very own Congressman JC in trying to do some research for the team.
"EXCLUSIVE: Congressman Continues FOIA Request Battle with Depts of Defense, State over Iraq War-Related Documents
Conyers Sends New Letters to Agencies, Continues to Amend Request by 52 Congressmen, Argues Fees Should be Waived as Agencies Keep Up Stonewall
DoD, State, Question House Members' Ability to 'Disseminate Info to Public'" Read the entire BradBlog post here.
Thank you, Congressman Conyers, for marching onward. If you notice, sir, BradBlog comments contain people who are trying to get donors to give you money to pay for the FOIA requests! If that is holding you back, I'd gladly send in a contribution, and so would many others, I am sure.
OK, this little blog hog now promises to turn off my computer for the rest of the day!
Comment #34: Truth_in_action said on 4/22/06 @ 5:29pm ET...
Sorry! The previous link failed.
Here is the working link to the BradBlog story on Congressman Conyers mentioned above.
Comment #35: Nolip said on 4/22/06 @ 11:12pm ET...
"Neil Young's LIVING WITH WAR: 'It may just be the Fahrenheit 9/11 of rock'
BRAD BLOG Guest Blogger Jim Cirile Gets an Exclusive Pre-Release Listen to Neil Young's Groundbreaking New Protest Album…
Guest Blogged by Jim Cirile Neil Young wants to keep on rockin' the free world. His new record, Living With War , makes very clear that if the Bush regime...
Guest Blogged by Jim Cirile
Neil Young wants to keep on rockin' the free world.
His new record, Living With War, makes very clear that if the Bush regime is allowed to continue, there may not be a free world to rock for much longer.
At 7:30 PM on Friday, April 21, 2006, Reprise Records’ Dan Rose ushered a small cadre of us into a Reprise's Burbank headquarters for an exclusive listen to Young’s new CD. For the next 50 minutes, listen we did.
Let's get one thing out of the way right now: this album rocks. It's post '80s electric Neil Young at his grunge best, and of the 10 cuts on Living With War, the first eight are mostly uptempo rockers. In fact, this may be the 60-year-old Young’s most crossover-worthy album yet, since many of the songs should appeal to fans of bands as diverse as Green Day and Pearl Jam and will likely be embraced on campuses across America.
But there's one other tiny thing that makes this record stand out: it is one mother%^&*#% of a protest album. In fact, Living With War may just be the Fahrenheit 9/11 of rock…
The album kicks off with the tight wistful rocker, "After the Garden." Its strong hook sets the tone by hearkening back to Woodstock—remember what we were fighting for in the '60s, folks? It's all been dashed. Next up: "Living With War," a good cut that had toes tapping. But the room really came alive with the third cut, "Restless Consumer," a headbanging indictment of both American consumerism and the manipulation of the public by the corporate media. Young breaks into an almost rap-style rant in the choruses, with the refrain, "We don’t need no more lies!" No, we do not.
The fourth cut, "Shock and Awe," skewers our botched "liberation" of Iraq due to hubris and deliberately falsified intel. By this point it is clear Young is not pulling any punches. The lyrics are sometimes heart-wrenching, sometimes humorous, sometimes laden with uncomfortable truth.
Cuts 5 and 6, "Families" and "Flags of Freedom" examine the effect of war on us all, and "Flags" stops you dead with this thought-provoking lyric, "Do you think that you believe in yours more than they do theirs somehow?"
But Young kicks out the proverbial jams with the album's centerpiece, "Let's Impeach the President." This song is a blistering, barnstorming indictment of our Commander-in-Thief, and Young borrows a page from Michael Moore here by letting Bush destroy himself with his own words. In the song's midsection, Bush's own recorded contradictory statements are juxtaposed against one another to create an incontrovertible pastiche of lies and contradictions while the background singers chant, "Flip… Flop… Flip… Flop…" Incendiary. The CD is worth buying for this one song alone.
The tone grows wistful again (but with a ray of hope) in "Looking for a Leader," in which Young hopes someone, anyone, will step up to clean out the corruption—"Maybe it's Obama, but he thinks that he's too young… Maybe it's a woman, or a black man after all…" The CD finally downshifts with the tender, slower "Roger and Out," a look back on the "old hippie highway" and the fresh and perhaps naďve ideals of youth. Finally, Young closes with a showstopper—a full choral version of "America the Beautiful," featuring a 100-person choir. No gimmicks here—it is simply a traditional and deeply moving rendition of the song which, after the rest of Living With War, makes it quite clear that Young not only loves America, but wants to see it returned to its former glory. Soon.
The really remarkable thing is that the CD captures a live sound like few others do. It really sounds like you're in the room with Young and his 3-piece band as they blaze through the tunes. The album was recorded in a week with minimal overdubs, and this contributes an amazing vitality and urgency to the whole package. The choir and occasional trumpet add zing to an otherwise hard-rockin' bass-guitar-drum assault.
Says Reprise's Dan Rose, "We prefer to let the music speak for itself," and that it does—in volumes. If you're a fan of Young's, buy this. If you're not, consider buying it anyway. Young is saying out loud what most of America is feeling right now and what the corporate media refuses to allow to be said. Rock and roll at its best has always been about rebellion. And just in time, Living With War gives it to us in spades."
Neil Young's LIVING WITH WAR: 'It may just be the Fahrenheit 9/11 of rock'
Comment #36: Reed31463 said on 4/23/06 @ 1:45am ET...
More Lies and Libel From Edwin A. Sumcad
Does anybody reads this guy? It is amazing how large a tale this guy is spinning. His attempts to smear those he worships, verges on the ridiculous.
Impeachment Call For Profit?
Edwin has a problem with facts. First he names six retired generals that fault Bu$h for not firing Rumsfeld. He gets the list wrong. He lists Gen. Shinseki in with five others. Shinseki falls into a group that have criticized the Iraq war plans, but have not called for replacing Rumsfeld. The others I place in that category are: Clark, Franks, Gregson, Scowcroft, and Swartzkopf. The Gen he missed was Riggs. It is absurd to claim that publically calling for the relief of the Secretary of Defense translates to writing a book about impeachment in order to profit.
Secondly, he implies that Congressman Conyers "literary epic", although he does not mention it by name, Constitution in Crisis, was written for the "Media in Wall Streets." Whatever that means.
Lastly, he asserts that the Downing Street Minutes are forgeries.
After wildly rambling on about Bill Clinton; that Bu$h could circumvent FISA because of the Patriot Act, besides the laws aren't perfect, and "the time-honored principle that the security of the state preempts individual rights"; and besides, impeachment sets up a constitutional crisis because no crime was proved to be committed, he then lays down a few more baseless lies about profiteering and Congressman Conyers.Yep, you got that right. After a tortured and twisting tale, his conclusion is, whether foolish or not, impeachment is a money-making capitalistic venture.
