Cooperative Terrorists are Left in Legal Limbo

Here is a fascinating story from the Washington Post that indicates why things are never black and white in the shadowy world of intelligence. Mohamedou Ould Slahi and Tariq al-Sawah are two high-value terrorists who decided to switch sides and cooperate with the American military after they were sent to Guantanamo.

Both former terrorists have fought in Afghanistan and had links to Al-Qaeda leadership. One of them confessed to being a skilled bomb maker and they have probably killed Americans. However they are cooperating and have provided useful information. In reward, they have been given comfortable living quarters including well-stocked refrigerators and televisions.

Sawah seems to be an outgoing fellow who has developed a talent for painting. He also wants to write his memoirs. The problem is what to do with them. Some authorities are arguing that since they have cooperated and provided useful information, they should be put into the Witness Protection program. Their former Al-Qaeda comrades probably want to put them six feet under.

Unfortunately both men have committed numerous crimes and are wanted by authorities in several countries. Their lawyers also argue that they have been tortured. Salahi was tortured under orders from former Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfield. So right now, they are stuck in legal limbo and remain in comfortable prisons.

Doing business with killers might seem distasteful, but that is how things are done in the Intelligence business. The people you recruit are usually traitors, thieves, killers and turncoats, who are willing to sell their own side out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/24/AR2010032403135_3.html?sid=ST2010032403323

poll by twiigs.com

Tea Party Seems to Be Headed for a "McVeigh Moment"

We hear daily reports of terrorism -- yes terrorism -- linked to the Tea Party. The last time I checked this included racial and sexual insults, bricks thrown through windows and spitting. The most recent event involves Rep.Tom Perriello (D-Va.). A Tea Party activist mistakenly published Perriello's brother's address and urged other Tea Baggers to drop by and pay him a visit. Perriello's brother later discovered a cut gas line at his home.

As much as I wish it won't happen, it seems that there is going to be a major, violent incident involving Tea Party activists. Democratic lawmakers have already been assaulted and their families have been targeted. (Even the Mafia doesn't do that.) I wonder when the Tea Party will have their Timothy McVeigh movement?

Older people will remember the political atmosphere of the mid-'90s which spawned the Militia Movement, a bunch of angry, blue-collar white men, who were frustrated with the political and economic system. (Sound familiar?) That movement ran into a wall on April, 19, 2005, when Timothy McVeigh, a disgruntled Gulf War vet, denoted a truck bomb in front of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

That effectively marked the beginning of the end of the Militia Movement. The bombing killed 168 people, ordinary federal workers who had gone to work trying to make a decent living. It also killed 19 children, who were housed in the day care in the Murrah building's basement, and created 30 orphans. The defining image of the Oklahoma City bombing was a shaken firefighter pulling a dead infant from the building. The photo later received a Pulitzer Prize.

This kind of rage is not new to sections of this country. During the Civil Rights Movement children were often the victims of indiscriminate bombing, as portrayed in Spike Lee's "Four Little Girls," which detailed the 1963 Birmingham church bombing that killed four girls during Sunday service. During the 1960s, black people jokingly called Birmingham, "Bombingham."

After the Oklahoma City bombing, public opinion turned against the Militia Movement, who were branded as baby killers - and no one wants to side with people like that. I hope and pray It doesn't come to that, but from recent events it seems just a matter of time before the Tea Party gets its McVeigh moment.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34934.html

poll by twiigs.com

Nobody Loves A Spitter

Shock Jock Tactics Are Leading GOP to Oblivion


There is an old trick that black people, and many other disenfranchised people, use. It's a combination of Jujitsu/non violence, where one person uses the other person's rage against them. And that is probably what helped the Democrats win the health care reform debate.

This tactic was used during the Civil Rights era. Civil Rights activists knew they were going into a dangerous environment where riled up white people were going to throw everything, but the kitchen sink, at them. They knew they could not beat Segregationists in a head on confrontation, so they turned the tables on their opponents.

The Civil Rights movement cast themselves as saint-like, non-violent protesters, who sat silently while they were clubbed, hosed, spat on and bitten by dogs. The Pro Segregation protesters came across looking like bullies, who were beating up on a bunch of defenseless students.

Those were the images beamed around the world. Angry, foaming at the mouth, white people haranguing defenseless black people. This was nothing new, Bayard Rustin, who was the architect of many of the Civil Rights movements tactics, had studied the writing of Mohandas Ghandi, who used the same techniques against the British in the fight for Indian independence. This was the reason why Rosa Parks, a saintly seamstress, was cast as the face of the Civil Rights movement. Police officers were not about to use their nightsticks on an middle-aged church lady.

The same thing happened during the Health Care debate. Somewhere along the lines, the Tea Party was cast as the party of angry, old white people, who yell at special needs people, spit on venerable congressmen and shout racial and sexual slurs. No one wants to be associated with that -- not even the Republican party. What people will remember from the Health Care debates is the threats, the slurs and the shouted insults. They will not remember the GOP offering any concrete alternative solutions. (Maybe, because they didn't offer any.)


David Frum, a Republican pundit, has said the Republican party needs to get away from what he calls "talk radio" tactics, fear, anger, hate and hyperbole. People like Rush Limbaugh makes their money by saying outrageous statements, so they can drive up their ratings and charge more in advertising. Frum said, "I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. "

More often than not Conservative shock jocks don't believe in what they are saying, and half the time they don't bother to check if their statements are accurate. For example, Limbaugh said he would move to Costa Rica if health care reform passed. But Costa Rica has a nationalized health care system!

You can't govern like this. Letting shock jocks lead your party with exaggerated speaking points gets you nowhere. All it means is, you have a bunch of angry, ill-informed people repeating the same falsehoods, spitting and making you look bad.

Tea Bagger Hate Has Always Been in Plain View

Latest racial attacks are not surprising

Are people surprised that Tea Baggers directed spittle and insults at Democratic legislators? News reports say that Rep. John Lewis, a veteran of the Civil Rights movement, was called the n-word and Rep. Barney Frank was called a faggot. In another incident, Rep. Emanuel Carver was spat on.

It is only the natural progression of tension that have been building for the last 12 months. We saw this during the Town Hall rallies when flabby, ageing Americans almost came to blows over health care. Were those red-faced protesters at the Town Hall rallies actually happy with America's profit-driven health care system, which rewards executives for denying sick people treatment? Actually, many of those protesters were directed by PR companies and lobbyists, who were bankrolled by health insurance companies.

Tea Baggers, who seem to be mainly frustrated middle-aged white people have been whipped into a rage by AM radio and FOX News, the great miscommunicator. Before that there were books written by propagandist such as Ann Coulter which advocated the execution for liberals. FOX News also runs the nightly rantings of the deranged Glenn Beck, as he warns about plots to take away guns, ban fishing and destroy the government -- all the time offering no credible evidence

Tea Baggers are upset at the state of the economy, the shrinking middle class and the fact that neither of the parities seems to speak for them. The GOP, under President George W. Bush, enacted policies that left America awash in red ink. These findings are backed by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Writing in the Huffington Post Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said, "The Bush tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations have led to the largest concentration of wealth since the Great Depression. His devastating and unnecessary war in Iraq was done without evidence linking the country to those who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001. And the Medicare prescription drug act that Bush signed into law intentionally prohibited Medicare from negotiating prescription drug prices, costing us billions every year. Each of these programs was not paid for and exacerbated the deficit problems our country already faced."

The real problem is the lack of diversity in the American political system. Both parties tend to favor the corporate agenda, because they take money from the same companies. The Tea Party wants a more libertarian and fiscally responsible GOP, but that would never happen because they would never get elected. Liberals are unhappy at President Obama's agenda, because they think it's too centrist.

The GOP has struggled to maintain the votes of middle class and blue-collar Americans by sprinkling in wedge issues such as gay marriage, abortion and race. And that is where the Tea Bagger anger comes from. Yeah, the economy is in a mess, so it must be the fault of the black guy who has only been in charges for less than two years, forget about eight years of GOP policies. If the mortgage industry crashed it must because of bad loans given to blacks and Mexicans, not shady financing by Wall Street bankers. And the black guy int the White House only got their because of affirmative action and isn't a "real American."

When you have people like Sean Hannity, Beck and Rush Limbaugh throwing around racial epithets, it's not surprising that we have signs like "Monkey See, Monkey Do," "Obama's an illegal alien," and much worse at Tea Party rallies. The atmosphere around these rallies has been widely reported by the media, in spite of the fervent denials of members of the Tea Party.

If they actually studied the issues and watched real news stations, other than FOX News, Tea Baggers would figure out that the Democrats' policies are actually more in line with helping working people. According to an article by Tom Dickinson in Rolling Stone, "A recent poll found that only two percent of Tea Partyers are aware that the president enacted the largest middle-class tax cut in history. A staggering 44 percent, by contrast, believe that Obama has increased their taxes — and only 16 percent blame the current economic catastrophe on Bush, who ran up record deficits by slashing taxes for the wealthy."

Tea Party members are mad because they have been screwed over by the Republican party. They are just not bright enough to figure out where to direct their anger, and spit.

Ron Paul Denies Responsibility for Racist Comments in His Newsletter

Rep. Ron Paul is an oddity. He is a libertarian-leaning Republican, who voted against the Iraq War, opposes the Patriot Act and has called for an auditing of the Federal Reserve. He is also in favor of withdrawing from the United Nations and reducing drug sentencing. And although he won the CPAC poll, he has absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2012.

Paul has been dogged by accusations of racist comments he made in his newsletter back in the 1980s and 1990s. (His son, Rand, also discovered he had a white supremacist working on his campaign team.) Some of the comments in Paul's newsletter include advising people to buy guns to protect themselves against blacks, accusing blacks of thinking car jacking is hip and saying that inner city blacks are taught to hate whites.

Paul claims that he was the publisher of the newsletter but did not keep track of who was writing for the publication or what they were writing about it. As a journalist, I have learned that if your name is on top of a publication, you bear responsibility for it. Also, CEOs of corporations are held responsible for the products their companies put out.

His excuses in this CNN interview simply do not add up. You don't get to say, "I didn't know" and walk away. And this wasn't one comment, there were several. It seems obvious that this was a smear campaign designed to upset Paul as he was gaining popularity, but it leaves some nagging doubts about Paul's motivations. But the question is where do we, and Ron Paul, go from here? I think Paul's political future lies with a third party, which would only draw away Republican voters.

poll by twiigs.com

Greenspan, Neo Cons Favor Lowering Wages to Drive Up Profits

I am currently reading, Thom Hartmann''s "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class." Much of it is depressingly accurate, but it might explain the nation's current economic climate. The economy has affected all segments of society, but particularly the middle class. If you need any evidence of this, look at the huge numbers of home foreclosures (there are three in a row on my block), bankruptcies and repos.

Those were mainly blue-collar/middle-class people who were making a comfortable living until they were laid off. Unfortunately in this economy, $50,000 per year jobs are not out there anymore. And if they are, there is fierce competition for them. Wages have also been depressed. Since there are so many people out of work, many workers are willing to lower their wages, just so they can have some form of income.

In many cases, companies have eliminated middle-management jobs and are replacing those workers with inexperienced, recent grads, who are happy to land any job. Also a recent grad will gladly work for $30,000, while a mid-career professional would have a hard time accepting this salary. Hartmann argues this was done deliberately. He said that many conservatives believe that the country should be ruled by a super-rich elite, who make all the important decisions. Essentially, it is a return to feudalism and in modern-day America, which has a rapidly shrinking middle class, I can see how this could happen. The book argues that part of this policy is to keep the middle class so stressed from trying to making a living, they will not have the time to take an active interest in politics. This is also a theory reported by Noami Klein in "The Shock Doctrine," and this is happening. If you don't believe me, trying having a political conversation with a friend and see how far it goes before that person says, "I am too busy trying to survive, to worry about politics."

Hartmann also reports that former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan was in favor of weakening the middle class and thus driving down wages. (I googled the quote and the link is included below.) And that is pretty much what is happening now. Competition is so fierce, many workers have lowered their wage expectations. This benefits the share holders because that saved money is returned to them in dividends. So, according to the American business model, companies will pay their employees the lowest wage possible, work them to death and avoid offering them any benefits, if possible. And if all else fails, they simply fire employees and use the saved income to drive up stock dividends. That sounds awfully similar to working conditions in many American companies.

http://blog.noslaves.com/alan-greenspan-recommends-wiping-out-the-middle-class/

poll by twiigs.com

Saudi Prince Owns A Major Stake in FOX News

Arab Muslim is fourth largest owner of Conservatives' Favorite Channel

International politics is often like a chess game, but at times it's more like the 3-D chess that Kirk and Spock played in "Star Trek." People who come across as friends are really enemies, and enemies are often friendly with people they portray a sworn rivals.

In Craig Unger's book "House of Bush, House of Saud," he details the long-standing ties between the Bush family and the Saudi Arabian royal family. These ties go back almost 60 years and through two generations of both families.

Many journalists argue that these ties were the reason why we did not launch military attacks against Saudi Arabia, even though nine of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Unger also points out that just after 9-11 Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S., was allowed to round up members of Bin Laden's family and ship them out of the country. This is also mentioned in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11." In addition, Unger also says that Prince Bandar had advanced warning of the invasion of Iraq, before even then Sec. of State Gen. Colin Powell.

The Bushes and the Sauds have a lot in common, apart from oil. Both are powerful, dynastic families and they have both exploited religious fundamentalists to further their causes. (George H.W. Bush serves on the board of the Carlyle group along with Obama Bin Laden's brother.) Unger argues that the Sauds have played both sides of the field. They have funded Wahabi fundamentalists at home and abroad, and at the same time kissed up to the 'decadent' West. Tea Baggers like to play up images of Obama bowing to foreign leaders, but seem to have forgotten Dubya kissing and holding hands with Saudi King Abdullah.

This is one of Osama Bin Laden's main bones of contention, and he is right. The Saudi royal family is notoriously corrupt and decadent. While they ban women from driving in their country and make them wear the hijab, they are infamous for whoring and gambling in Europe. The Sauds were highly embarrassed by 9-11. Unger argues that the Saudis prefer that fundamentalist Muslims wreak havoc in America, instead of launching a revolution at home. In his book Unger cites several cases of Saudi money ending up in terrorists hands.

The Bushes' and the Sauds' real agenda is to support the oil industry and keep the money flowing. And this might explain why Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal is the fourth largest stake holder of FOX News, the American propaganda channel that vigorously supported the war.

According to Think Progress, his 7 percent stake, makes him the largest stakeholder, outside the Murdoch family. But here is where it gets really bizarre. FOX News guests are renowned for their inflammatory comments about Arabs and Muslims and the war on Terror. Critics of FOX have also implied this is the reason why FOX News hosts are big-time global warming deniers. Of course a billionaire Saudi prince, who made his money from oil, would have a vested interest in shooting down global warming science which blame fossil fuels for climate change.

Bush tapped into the Fundamentalist wing of the GOP, by proclaiming himself a born-again Christian, who also had no trouble killing thousands of innocent people. At the beginning of the War on Terror, he referred to the war as a "crusade" and Osama Bin Laden as "the Evil One," language designed to appeal to Evangelicals. Some Evangelicals believed that Bush was anointed by God, and it was impossible for a true Christian to vote Democrat. Writing in a Salon.com article, titled "Battle of the Bushes," Unger says, "On the other hand was his son George W. Bush, a radical Evangelical poised to enact a vision of American exceptionalism shared by the Christian Right, who saw American destiny as ordained by God and by neoconservative ideologues, who believed that America's "greatness" was founded on "universal principles" that applied to all men and all nations -- and gave America the right to change the world."

Many Americans believe that the War on Terror is the opening skirmish of Armageddon, a final struggle between the Christian West and the Muslim East. There have been reports of gun makers inserting Bible verses into scopes of guns sent to Iraq. And Erik Prince, founder of the notorious Blackwater security company, is a fundamentalist Christian, who saw the Iraq war as a Christian holy war against Muslims. Last year, a GQ article reported that some American soldiers in Iraq had painted Christian verses on the sides of their tanks. The article also explains stated that Bush received war briefings with Bible verses sprinkled in them.

I wonder how Conservatives, who see the war in religious terms, like the idea of a heathen Muslim owning a large stake in their favorite news outlet? And it's also bizarre that an Arab owns a channel that spends much of its time demonizing Middle Easterners. But this goes to show that both the Bushes and the Sauds see the war as a battle over resources, and use religion as a smoke screen to divert the attention of the masses.

poll by twiigs.com