A collection of insightful ruminations, reflections, and rants on the events of the day (with the exception of the weekend). We'll collect a week's worth here and then archive them. Come visit each weekday to see what's pushing Barbara's buttons.
April 2, 2004
Please don't tell me that White House lawyers are collaborating with members of the 9-11 Commission! "I don't talk about my conversations with the White House," said Republican James Thompson. Note: NO denial that the conversation took place! Come on people, when the alleged perpetrators are allowed to use the investigator to question a rebuttal witness, there is something rotten and it's not in Denmark.
* * *
Their are a few voices in mainstream media -- Paul Krugman being one -- who will call some of the more blatant suck up White House shills -- Wolf Blitzer being one -- to task for their obvious attempts to smear and slime the truth tellers. Blitzer has been so openly biased in his spin for the White House, it makes one wonder if he's desperate for an invitation to the next White House luncheon or if he yearns to be CNN's version of Bill O'Reilly? All I can say is we, the American public, are beholden to those journalists who have enough integrity to continue to bring out the truth. Thank you, Paul Krugman!
* * *
Oh, if only the rest of the world was as gutsy as the seniors at Redwoods Retirement Community! With an average age of 86 and an enormous history of life experiences, these people have not forgotten how to live! I will be watching for the film "Seniors for Peace" when it airs locally. My hat's off, and my thanks to those who have the guts to stand up for what they believe in. Also, thanks to Mill Valley for recognizing a citizens right to speak freely -- no protest zones there!
* * *
April 1, 2004
When logic overcomes supposition. Why did the FBI security detail in July 2001 decide John Ashcroft should stop flying commercial airlines due to what it called a "threat assessment"? Why did the FBI and the Justice Department refuse to identify "what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it"? Why if the threat was imminent enough to cancel commercial flights for Ashcroft did they not issue a warning to the American public flying commercially? Why did top Pentagon officials cancel all travel plans on 9-10? Why didn't NORAD respond as has been proclaimed within minutes of the attack to protect America? Were some of these planes already on stand-by to protect George Bush if necessary? Are all these precursors to be written off as coincidence or will someone with some balls start connecting the dots and tell America the truth about how and why 9-11 happened?
* * *
March 31, 2004
The arrogance and audacity of the insane self-righteous has become the bane of the innocent. George Bush, believing himself to be on a crusade, has abandoned the principles of morality and the truth. In his misguided zeal he has negated the safety and security of America. He has failed the innocent and brought disaster upon the whole world. When innocent life becomes "necessary collateral damage," when soldiers are sent to war on lies, and when bombs are dropped with care to save the oil, you have to know that insanity is the prevailing factor. It is hard to come to grips with the truth, but it's time to recognize that those in charge are not dealing with a full deck. If safety and security are our utmost concern, then it's time to start believing those with the courage to come forward with the truth!
* * *
And now the question becomes, just who at the White House has information that would be damaging to the Bush administration? Who are they afraid of? Whose truth would serve the families of the victims of 9-11 and the American people? What, in Ms. Rice's upcoming testimony, could initiate the Commission's need to call someone else to testify? Exactly what did the president really want to do and when did he want to do it? What did they believe was necessary to garner the support of the American people to go to war with Iraq? Was vacationing at the ranch by design or ignorance? I just pray that the Commission realizes that the future of America depends now on the questions they ask of Ms. Rice.
* * *
Having read the various publications regarding 9-11 and what the Bushies knew and what they didn't know, it is my opinion that they knew that a terrorist attack was about to occur and they ignored the warnings, hoping it would result in minimum casualties, yet provide maximum affect, in order to garner public support for their macabre plan to spread their vision of democracy around the world using preemptive war. The byproducts of this plan would also enrich the pockets of those providing the tools of war! These are the kinds of things that happen when one finds men and women who are willing to accept "collateral damage" as a necessary contingent of war!
* * *
March 30, 2004
Richard Clarke testified under oath. He did not flinch in the face of the demeaning questions posed by some on the Commission and he answered all the questions with the direct fervor of a man telling the truth. In subsequent appearances on television and in every possible venue designed to trip him up, we have seen the same honesty he brought to the Commission. On the other hand, the White House has sent out all the dogs to refute Mr. Clarke's testimony, bypassing sworn testimony for GOP-friendly media. Even though they certainly had enough time to formulate a concerted effort (they reviewed his book several months ago), they contradicted each other, and even themselves, time and again. When double-speak becomes the talking point of the day, you have to know the Bushies are hiding something and, as evidenced by their nasty presentation of non-facts filled with threat and innuendo, they are not doing a very good job of it!
* * *
This poll is a testimony that mainstream media is not doing their job! The differences in opinions between those who obviously get their news from the internet and those who get their news from elsewhere is glaringly apparent. We can thank those journalists with integrity and web sites like BuzzFlash for getting the truth out to the American people. Without them, we would be in a mainstream media Bush fog!
* * *
From the 60 Minutes transcript with Condoleezza Rice: "Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify. I would really like to do that. But there is an important principle here ... it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress." Errr, someone needs to tell Ms. Rice this is the 9-11 Commission appointed by Bush, investigating the terrorist attacks that occurred on that fateful day, not "Congress!" My God, they can't even get where they are testifying correct, how can anyone think they are capable of doing the job they had to steal?
* * *
March 29, 2004
"I don't think the American people believe that a president would, in a cavalier way, turn his back on information that could jeopardize the nation," said Sid Rogich, an image consultant for President George H.W. Bush. Uhh, I don't think the American people want to believe that a president would do such a thing, but, more and more, the evidence is becoming quite clear he did. More importantly, he did it knowingly, allowing 3000 people to die in order to give him a reason to invade Iraq!
* * *
needs to get his story straight," said
Condoleezza Rice last week. Somehow,
this statement, coming from someone who has refused to testify
publicly under oath, about someone who did testify publicly
under oath, is utterly ridiculous. The contradictions repeatedly
made by Ms. Rice, in her zeal to discredit Mr. Clarke, proves that
she must be required to testify under oath if the 9-11 Commission
expects to report the truth to families who lost loved ones and
to the American people. The future safety and security of America
depends on the findings of this Commission.
otherwise noted, all original