Who Would Vote For bush Again?

This oft-recurring daft argument about whether or not the bushites tried to put the idea of imminent threat into Americans' minds, and what exact words were used, is an insult to anyone of average intelligence. It's just like "depends on what 'is', is". This argument is the one that started solidifying in my mind that the bushophiles don't care about truth one little bit - just in following their boy wherever he leads...



"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
- White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
- President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
- President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
- President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
- President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"Well, of course he is."
- White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. …Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
- President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
- President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before?
When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
- President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
- President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
- President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
- President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
- President Bush, 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
- President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
- President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
- President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons. "
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Misleading. The country. Into war.

Why do you pretend to deplore ad hominem attacks, c.i.? You're obviously a big fan of that device. In fact, we could probably fill several pages with your recent ad hominem attacks on those with whom you disagree.

Tico, Read snoods post on the top of this page. If you guys don't understand what lies are, why are you so concerned about my labels for liars and supporters of liars?

Worth posting here:

A Collapsing Presidency
By Paul Craig Roberts
The latest national survey by the PewResearchCenter finds that President Bush's support among the American people has fallen to 33%. Even more devastatingly, the survey finds that people's most frequently used one-word description of President Bush is "incompetent."

The chief chaplain for the New York City Corrections Department told a Tucson audience that "the greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House." Two years ago when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was suppressing demonstrations at the Republican National Convention, the chief chaplain would have been fired for his remarks, but not today.

Abroad among peoples who formerly looked to America for leadership, American atrocities in Iraq have created sympathy and support for the Iraqi resistance.

When the Bush administration gets in trouble, it turns to war, which has worked for it in the past. Thus, this past week there was live coverage of "Operation Swarmer," which occupied a solid day on CNN and Fox "News." The venerable Washington Monthly reports that the hyped "assault on Samarra" was nothing but a Potemkin operation?-a set propaganda piece to demonstrate US military prowess and the battle-ready "new Iraqi army," only there were no insurgents in Samarra to battle. The much-hyped "Operation Swarmer" was a photo op for TV cameras as troops fired into empty desert.

One can imagine the thoughts in Bush's mind: "Thank goodness I didn't capture bin Laden. Maybe he will strike again and bail me out."

What is going to rescue Bush? Not the Republican Party. A few Republican congressmen, such as Walter Jones, are trying to get a debate going, but Republicans believe that they are stuck to the fate of their man. There is no one within the administration to turn Bush toward diplomacy and away from coercion.

Created on the principle that "you are with us or against us," Bush's administration is all of one mind. They are all neocons. There are no real conservatives or traditional Republicans in the Bush administration. This is the first administration in my lifetime in which there is no debate.The absence of debate means there is no check on reckless and ill-advised policies and corrupt schemes.

Neocons don't believe in debate. They specialize in slandering critics and stamping out debate. Dissent is not possible within the Bush administration, because dissent is equated with treason and anti-Americanism. "You are with us or against us." Increasingly, Republicans demonize their critics as "abettors of terrorism." The Republicans' intolerance for debate makes many Americans uneasy about the real purpose of the $385 million detention camp that Halliburton is building in the US for the Bush administration.

Neocons don't believe in diplomacy. They believe in coercion. Neocons denigrate diplomacy as the epitome of weakness. Neocons slap down diplomacy before it can rise. The Iranians offered talks, and neocon National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley immediately slapped down the offer as "simply a device by the Iranians to try to divert pressure that they are feeling." The Bush neocons are bent on war with Iran. They don't want any talks. In their books, neocons have demonized Muslims in the same way that the Nazis demonized Jews. Demonization makes talks impossible.

On March 17, William Rivers Pitt declared Bush to be "deranged, disconnected, and dangerous." But what else to expect from a neocon administration that declares that it creates its own reality and mocks its critics for being "reality-based." Neocons insanely believe that American power can be used to recreate the world in America's image. Neocons are dangerous because they really believe that the US can invade the Middle East, deracinate Islam, and install puppet governments.

These disconnected neocons are not shaken by facts or by results. Their evil eye falls on US field commanders and CIA analysts who declare that the US military is creating insurgents faster than it can kill them.

Creating your own reality means that when you cannot put down a resistance based in 5 million Iraqi Sunnis, you attack 70 million Iranians, who are allied with 15 million Iraqi Shia, Hizbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine.

The Bush administration is sending every signal that it is determined to go to war with Iran. Will the rest of the world block the American aggression, or will the rest of the world decide that it is in the world's best interest for the hubris-driven hegemon to exhaust itself in conflict in the Middle East?

A thank you to readers: I appreciate the support demonstrated by your anger at the neocon web site, Frontpage, for slandering me. But to put a different light on the matter, let me ask you, what would you think of me if I were praised by Frontpage? Isn't it preferable to be denounced by the neocon brownshirts? What better secures my reputation?

Neocons are incapable of debate, because they don't believe in it. Neocons rely on disinformation and deceit to impose their agenda.

Neocons do not believe in the US Constitution, civil liberties, the separation of powers, or the Geneva Conventions. According to published reports, President Bush described the Constitution as "a scrap of paper." Bush's attorney general, vice president, and secretary of defense have openly defended the Bush administration's practice of torture, violations of habeas corpus, and illegal spying. These high officials, in violation of their oath of office, have openly declared that Bush, as commander-in-chief, is above the law.

What American ever expected to see the safeguards against tyranny put in place by the Founding Fathers removed in the name of providing security against terrorists by a president who purports to believe in original intent?

Neocons are Jacobins. They are a foreign import and do not share our American values. Neocons are a grave danger to the United States and to the world. Neocons have led America into two gratuitous on-going wars that cannot be won, and they are determined to lead us into more wars. It is our duty to defend our country and to oppose these evil people.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

You are entitled to believe what you believe, c.i. You can even believe it strongly. And I'm entitled to believe you are misguided. But my calling you "misguided" is certainly no more an ad hominem than you calling someone you disagree with "stupid."

What I'm pointing out to you is your hypocrisy in crying about others engaging in ad hominem attacks, when it's clear you do the same thing.

Brandon and Tico spend their days nit picking every word used by Liberals, Democrats, or anyone who has an opposing view.

Tico makes short condescending comments that are virtually meaningless and Brandon keeps throwing out question after question. In most cases neither of them make any sense what so ever.

Then they bellyache because we don't play their silly games on their terms.

Now let's see..... what was that comment that Dick Cheney made to Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor?.................................

When it's true, I don't see it as "ad hominem." It's not personal or emotional; it's fact.

Maggs, Neocons call us "commie, Liebrals, unpatriotic, we love the enemy more than America, America haters, etc., etc.," and we don't hear a peep from the likes of Tico. They can't even be honest to themselves.

Yep, I'm wondering when Tico and Brandon are going to sign up for the military and walk the walk of that patriotism they whine about.

I have an enlistment form that I can fax to either or both of them.

Censored News Stories of 2005
Top 10 Project Censored News Stories
January 27, 2006

Dear friends,

Project Censored specializes in covering the top news stories which were either ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media each year. Project Censored is a research team composed of nearly 200 university faculty, students, and community experts who review about 1,000 news story submissions for coverage, content, reliability of sources, and national significance. The top 25 stories selected are submitted to a panel of judges who then rank them in order of importance. The results are published each year in an excellent book available for purchase at their website, amazon.com, and most major book stores.

A brief summary of last year's top 10 censored news stories provided below proves quite revealing and most informative. The headline of each news story contains a link for those who want to read the entire article. Links to sources are also provided for verification. Thanks to the Internet and wonderful, committed groups like Project Censored, the news is getting out to those who want to know. By revealing these censored news stories, we can stop the excessive secrecy and work together to build a brighter future. Please help to spread the word, and have a great day!

With best wishes,
Fred Burks for the WantToKnow.info Team
Former language interpreter for Presidents Bush and Clinton


http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006 - Top 25 Project Censored news stories
http://www.projectcensored.org/store - Order book "Censored 2006" here for full news stories


1. White House Erodes Open Government

While the White House has expanded its ability to keep tabs on civilians, it's been working to curtail the ability of the public?-and even Congress?-to find out what the government is doing. One year ago, Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., released an 81-page analysis of how the administration has administered the country's major open government laws. The report found that the feds consistently "narrowed the scope and application" of the Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act and other key public-information legislation, while expanding laws blocking access to certain records?-even creating new categories of "protected" information and exempting entire departments from public scrutiny. When those methods haven't been enough, the administration has simply refused to release records?-even when requested by a congressional subcommittee or the Government Accountability Office. Given the news media's interest in safeguarding open government laws, one wonders why these findings weren't publicized far and wide.

Source: "New Report Details Bush Administration Secrecy" press release, Karen Lightfoot, Government Reform Minority Office, posted on www.commondreams.org, Sept. 14, 2004.


2. Media Coverage on Iraq: Fallujah and the Civilian Death Toll

The civilized world may well look back on the assaults on Fallujah in 2004 as examples of utter disregard for the most basic wartime rules of engagement. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour called for an investigation into whether the Americans and their allies had engaged in "the deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, the killing of injured persons, and the use of human shields," among other possible "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions" considered war crimes under federal law. More than 83 percent of Fallujah's 300,000 residents fled the city. Men between the ages of 15 and 45 were refused safe passage, and all who remained?-about 50,000?-were treated as enemy combatants. Numerous sources reported that coalition forces cut off water and electricity, shot at anyone who ventured out into the open, executed families waving white flags while trying to swim across the Euphrates, shot at ambulances, and allowed corpses to rot in the streets and be eaten by dogs. Medical staff reported seeing people with melted faces and limbs, injuries consistent with the use of phosphorous bombs. But you likely know little of this as the media hardly mentioned it.

Sources: "The Invasion of Fallujah," Mary Trotochaud and Rick McDowell, Peacework, Dec. 2004-Jan. 2005; "Fallujah Refugees Tell of Life and Death in the Kill Zone," Dahr Jamail, New Standard, "The War in Iraq: Civilian Casualties, Political Responsibilities," Richard Horton, Lancet, Oct. 29, 2004; Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, April 15, 2004.


3. Distorted Election Coverage

The mainstream media largely ignored evidence that electronic voting machines were susceptible to tampering and downplayed political alliances between the machines' manufacturers and the Bush administration. Then came Nov. 2, 2004. President Bush prevailed by 3 million votes?-despite exit polls that projected John Kerry winning by a margin of 5 million. "Exit polls are highly accurate," wrote Professor Steve Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics in an article co-authored with statistician Josh Mitteldorf of TempleUniversity. "They remove most of the sources of potential polling error by identifying actual voters and asking them immediately afterward who they had voted for." The discrepancy of 8 million votes was well beyond the poll's recognized margin of error of less than one percent. The official result deviated by more than five percent, which is considered a statistical impossibility. Freeman and Mitteldorf analyzed the data and found that "only in precincts that used old-fashioned, hand-counted paper ballots did the official count and the exit polls fall within the normal sampling margin of error." The discrepancy between the exit polls and the official count was considerably greater in the critical swing states.

Sources: "A Corrupted Election," Steve Freeman, Josh Mitteldorf, In These Times, Feb. 15, 2005; "Jim Crow Returns to the Voting Booth, Greg Palast and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jan. 26, 2005.


4. Surveillance Society Quietly Moves In

It's a well-known dirty trick in the halls of government: If you want to pass unpopular legislation that you know won't stand up to scrutiny, just wait until the public isn't looking. That's precisely what the White House did Dec. 13, 2003, the day American troops captured Saddam Hussein. President Bush celebrated the occasion by privately signing into law the Intelligence Authorization Act?-a controversial expansion of the PATRIOT Act that included items culled from the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," a draft proposal that had been shelved due to a public outcry after being leaked. Specifically, the IAA allows the government to obtain an individual's financial records without a court order. The law also makes it illegal for institutions to inform anyone that the government has requested those records, or that information has been shared with the authorities. The law also broadens the definition of "financial institution" to include insurance companies, travel and real estate agencies, stockbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service, jewelry stores, casinos, airlines, car dealerships, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters." In one fell swoop, this act has decimated our rights to privacy, due process, and freedom of speech.

Sources: "PATRIOT Act's Reach Expanded Despite Part Being Struck Down," Nikki Swartz, Information Management Journal, March/April 2004; "Grave New World," Anna Samson Miranda, LiP, Winter 2004; "Where Big Brother Snoops on Americans 24/7," Teresa Hampton, www.capitolhillblue.com, June 7, 2004.


5. U.S. Uses Tsunami to Military Advantage in Southeast Asia

The American people reacted to the tsunami that hit the Indian Ocean last December with an outpouring of compassion and private donations. Across the nation, neighbors got together to collect food, clothing, medicine and financial contributions. The White House initially offered an embarrassingly low $15 million in aid. More importantly, the government exploited the catastrophe to its own strategic advantage. Establishing a stronger military presence in the area could help theUnited States keep closer tabs on China. It could also fortify an important military launching ground and help consolidate control over potentially lucrative trade routes. The United States currently operates a base out of Diego Garcia?-a former British mandate about halfway between Africa and Indonesia, but the lease runs out in 2016. Consequently, in the name of relief, the U.S. revived the Utapao military base in Thailand it had used during the Vietnam War and reactivated its military cooperation agreements with Thailand and the Visiting Forces Agreement with the Philippines.

Sources: "US Turns Tsunami into Military Strategy," Jane's Foreign Report, Feb. 15, 2005; "US Has Used Tsunami to Boost Aims in Stricken Area," Rahul Bedi, Irish Times, Feb. 8, 2005; "Bush Uses Tsunami Aid to Regain Foothold in Indonesia," Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, Jan. 18, 2005.


6. The Real Oil for Food Scam

The United Nations allegedly allowed Saddam Hussein to rake in $10 billion in illegal cash through the Oil for Food program. New York Times columnist William Safire referred to the alleged U.N. con game as "the richest rip-off in world history." According to the GAO, Hussein smuggled $6 billion worth of oil out of Iraq?-most of it through the Persian Gulf. Yet most of the oil that left Iraq by land did so through Jordan and Turkey?-with the approval of the United States. The first Bush administration informally exempted Jordan from the ban on purchasing Iraqi oil?-an arrangement that provided Hussein with $4.4 billion over 10 years, according to the CIA's own findings. The U.S. later allowed Iraq to leak another $710 million worth of oil through Turkey, all while U.S. planes enforcing no-fly zones flew overhead. Scott Ritter, a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq during the first six years of economic sanctions against the country, unearthed yet another scam: The United States allegedly allowed an oil company run by Russian foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov's sister to purchase cheap oil from Iraq and resell it to U.S. companies at market value?-purportedly earning Hussein "hundreds of millions" more.

Sources: "The UN Is Us: Exposing Saddam Hussein's Silent Partner," Joy Gordon, Harper's, December 2004; "The Oil for Food 'Scandal' Is a Cynical Smokescreen," Scott Ritter, UK Independent, Dec. 12, 2004.


7. Journalists Face Unprecedented Dangers to Life and Livelihood

Last year was the deadliest year for reporters since the International Federation of Journalists began keeping tabs in 1984. A total of 129 media workers lost their lives, and 49 of them?-more than a third?-were killed in Iraq. As far as anyone has yet proved, no commanding officer ever ordered a subordinate to fire on journalists. But what can be shown is a pattern of tacit complicity, side by side with a heavy-handed campaign to curb journalists' right to roam freely. The Pentagon has refused to implement basic safeguards to protect journalists who aren't embedded with coalition forces, despite repeated requests by Reuters and media-advocacy organizations. To date, U.S. authorities have not disciplined a single officer or soldier involved in the killing of a journalist. Meanwhile, the interim government the United States installed in Iraq raided and closed down Al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices almost as soon as it took power and banned the network from doing any reporting in the country. In November, the interim government ordered news organizations to "stick to the government line on the U.S.-led offensive in Fallujah or face legal action," in an official command sent out on interim prime minister Eyad Allawi's letterhead.

Sources: "Dead Messengers: How the US Military Threatens Journalists," Steve Weissman, www.truthout.org, Feb. 28, 2005; "Media Repression in 'Liberated' Land," Dahr Jamail, Inter Press Service, Nov. 18, 2004.


8. Iraqi Farmers Threatened By US Mandates

Historians believe it was in the "fertile crescent" where Iraq now lies, that humans first learned to farm. "It is here...that mankind first domesticated wheat," wrote Jeremy Smith in the Ecologist. "The U.S., however, has decided that Iraqis don't know what wheat works best in their own conditions." Smith was referring to Order 81, penned by Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, and left as a legacy by the American government when it transferred operations to interim Iraqi authorities. The regulation sets criteria for the patenting of seeds that can only be met by multinational companies like Monsanto or Syngenta, and it grants the patent holder exclusive rights over every aspect of all plant products yielded by those seeds. The new scheme effectively launches a process whereby Iraqi farmers will soon have to purchase their seeds rather than using seeds saved from their own crops or bought at the local market. Native varieties will be replaced by foreign?-and genetically engineered?-seeds. Order 81 fit nicely into the outlines of a U.S. "Economy Plan," a 101-page blueprint for the economic makeover of Iraq, formulated with ample help from corporate lobbyists. BBC journalist Greg Palast reported that someone inside the State Department leaked the plan to him a month prior to the invasion. Smith put it simply: "The people whose forefathers first mastered the domestication of wheat will now have to pay for the privilege of growing it for someone else. And with that, the world's oldest farming heritage will become just another subsidiary link in the vast American supply chain."

Sources: "Iraq's New Patent Law: A Declaration of War Against Farmers,"Grain, October 2004; "Adventure Capitalism," Greg Palast, www.tompaine.com, Oct. 26, 2004; "US Seeking to Totally Re-Engineer Iraqi Traditional Farming System into a US Style Corporate Agribusiness," Jeremy Smith, Ecologist, Feb. 4, 2005.


9. Iran's New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency

The Bush administration has been paying a lot more attention to Iran recently. Part of that interest is clearly Iran's nuclear program?-but there may be more to the story. One bit of news that hasn't received the public attention it merits is Iran's declared intent to open an international oil exchange market, or "bourse." Not only would the new entity compete against the New York Mercantile Exchange and London's International Petroleum Exchange (both owned by American corporations), but it would also ignite international oil trading in euros. A shift away from U.S. dollars to euros in the oil market would cause the demand for petrodollars to drop, perhaps causing the value of the dollar to plummet. Russia, Venezuela and some members of OPEC have expressed interest in moving towards a petroeuro system. And it isn't entirely implausible that China, which is the world's second largest holder of U.S. currency reserves, might eventually follow suit. Barring a U.S. attack, it appears imminent that Iran's euro-dominated oil bourse will open in March 2006. Logically, the most appropriate U.S. strategy is compromise with the EU and OPEC towards a dual-currency system for international oil trades. But you won't hear any discussion of that alternative on the 6 o'clock news.

Source: "Iran Next US Target," William Clark, www.globalresearch.ca, Oct. 27, 2004.


10. Mountaintop Removal Threatens Ecosystem and Economy

On Aug. 15, environmental activists created a human blockade by locking themselves to drilling equipment, obstructing the National Coal Corp.'s access to a strip mine in the Appalachian Mountains 40 miles north of Knoxville, Tenn. It was just the latest in a protracted campaign that environmentalists say has national implications, but that's been ignored by the media outside the immediate area. Under contention is a technique wherein entire mountaintops are removed to access the coal underneath?-a practice that is nothing short of devastating for the local ecosystem, but which could become much more widespread. As it stands, 93 new coal plants are in the works nationwide. Areas incredibly rich in biodiversity are being turned into the biological equivalent of parking lots. Is this the final solution for 200-million-year-old mountains?

Source: "See You in the Mountains: Katúah Earth First! Confronts Mountaintop Removal," John Conner, Earth First!, November-December 2004.


Below are the headlines and links to Project Censored news stories 11 to 25

11. Universal Mental Screening Program Usurps Parental Rights

12. Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators

13. Rich Countries Fail to Live up to Global Pledges

14. Corporations Win Big on Tort Reform, Justice Suffers

15. Plan to Override Academic Freedom in the Classroom

16. U.S. Plans for Hemispheric Integration Include Canada

17. U.S. Uses South American Military Bases to Expand Control of the Region

18. Little Known Stock Fraud Could Weaken U.S. Economy

19. Child Wards of the State Used in AIDS Experiments

20. American Indians Sue for Resources; Compensation Provided to Others

21. New Immigration Plan Favors Business Over People

22. Nanotechnology Offers Exciting Possibilities, Health Effects Need Scrutiny

23. Plight of Palestinian Child Detainees Highlights Global Problem

24. Ethiopian Indigenous Victims of Corporate, Government Resource Aspirations

25. Homeland Security Was Designed to Fail


For several previous censored news stories even more important that those above, see our two-page media cover-up summary at http://www.WantToKnow.info/mediacover-up

Calling someone stupid is a personal attack, c.i.

And if either of them is worried about being too close to the age limit ( I don't know their ages), good news! They've recently raised the maximum age for first time Army recruits to 39!

Tico, You mean when I say president Bush is "incompetent," it's a personal attack? Well, it seems the majority of Americans say the same thing, and it's not considered a personal attack or ad hominem. Wonder why?

It is an "ad hominem" attack, c.i., but I'm not talking about your frequent attacks on Bush. I'm referring to your frequent attacks on fellow posters at this site.

This is why I like the term "Eatme".

cjh, And that's the reason most people on a2k don't take you seriously.

Gee, you mean truth about Bush is not as important as the people who post on a2k? I always knew that, but didn't expect you to confirm that simple truth!

More like the truth hurts.

cjh, You're not paying attention to people that respond to your posts.