July 21, 2008
I haven’t finished the first part of project mentioned here, but it’s getting there. In the meantime, while I continue to dig into the ugly depths of the anti-gay movement, here’s a quick rundown of what’s happening in our world:
Freaks on the Family Grand Poobah James Dobson is flip-flopping — again — on whether or not he’s going to vote for John McCain… because, of course, in Dobson’s diseased mind, Barack Obama is a baby killer.
Speaking of The Presumptuous Nominee, Queerty notes that Florida’s gay Democrats are disappointed with the Obama campaign, and quotes a report from Florida Capital News: “The leader of the Florida Democratic Party’s gay caucus, declaring that ‘I’m sick and tired of getting table scraps,’ complained Saturday that Sen. Barack Obama offended a large and faithful voting bloc by not sending his wife or another top campaign surrogate to the group’s annual meeting.”
Now, before anybody resorts to the tired old argument that ignoring gay groups is consistent with Obama’s refusal to pander to any single “interest,” we say: If Saint Barry can find the time to pander to hard-right Christian fundies — like he’ll be doing (again, and this time along with John McCain) at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church — then he can at least send his compulsive gum-flapper of a wife to talk to the Florida Democratic Party’s gay caucus. This isn’t like ignoring local gay press; this is an official caucus of the Democratic Party.
(You do still belong to the Democratic Party, don’t you, Barry? It’s so hard to tell these days. Or maybe the confusion stems from the fact that the Democratic Party — which now resembles the anti-gay right wing — belongs to you.
Speaking of McLame (and we were), hear tell Americans are tired of the blogosphere. This, from the guy who just last week admitted he’s “an [Internet] illiterate who has to rely on his wife for any assistance he can get,” and is only now “learning to get online.”
Back in the reality-based world, we’re happy to hear that activists in San Diego aren’t taking Doug Manchester’s campaign of anti-equality lying down — especially in one of Manchester’s beds. (Backstory here and here.) Just before San Diego Pride Saturday, between 150 and 200 people rallied in protest outside the Manchester Grand Hyatt (and were countered by about 75 bigots).
It’s probably true, as noted by the LAT’s Jessica Garrison, that last year’s sudden epiphany of bad-guy-turned-good-guy Mayor Jerry Sanders had something to do with mobilizing the anti-gay brigades. But then, it galvanized the good-guy Christians, too, into coming out against mindless bigotry. So there.
As for the San Diego pridefest itself, while Wendy Fry was bemoaning the fact that straight men just can’t wear boas and sequins the way gay men can, the “internationally renown anti-Scientology activism group Anonymous” was marching in its own contingent in the parade. If I were Anonymous, I’d remain anonymous, too. Those zany Xenuists scare the bejeebers out of my quivering little body thetans.
Further afield, Buffy’s got an update on the “South Carolina is So Gay” dust-up: South Carolina Will be So Gay–Whether They Like It Or Not.
Tourism experts are “puzzled” since five grand is such a measly price to pay “for such a lucrative niche market.” We’re not puzzled at all; hysterical homophobia always trumps common sense. Look at Jamaica, where they’d rather murder us than prop up their own barely-on-life-support economy with our Big Gay Dollars. We say: Screw ‘em — both Jamaica and the Jamaica of the United States, South Carolina. Let them eat dirt.
(Backstory: Amro Worldwide and Out Now Have an Advertising Lesson for Heinz: So Gay? So What. and You Can Cross South Carolina Off Your Vacation Destinations — They Don’t Want Us Nasty Homos (Or Our Money) There)
Also, my dear Gaytheist shines the light on yet another example of masking bigotry behind “deeply held religious beliefs,” in the case of a gay-hatin’ British cop: What’s the Matter With the UK Lately?
(Speaking of dumb cops, one of the San Diego Harbor Police shot to death a go-go boy who fell off a pride-cruise boat, and got physical with his rescuers. I don’t care what the guy did — when you’ve got one suspect surrounded by a bunch of armed police officers, there can’t be any excuse for failing to subdue him without killing him.)
Elsewhere on the international front: We’re glad that Iris Robinson, wife of Northern Ireland’s First Minister, and Ignorant, Sour-Lemon-Faced, Mad Old Cow whose sunken, empty eyes are only accentuated by a criminal sense of makeup application (see the picture at the link), lives half a world away from us, so we don’t have to listen to her vile nonsense about how much worse homosexuality is than child sexual abuse.
And here are the rest of the headlines that caught my eye today — I’ll leave you to them while I get back to the dirty work of digging into the incestuous circle of money and hate behind the Proposition 8 campaign:
Young, Gay and Murdered
Kids are coming out younger, but are schools ready to handle the complex issues of identity and sexuality? For Larry King, the question had tragic implications.
Man flees Turkey after “honour killing” of his gay activist boyfriend
Catholics for Choice take on the Catholic League
Eric Waugh: Pope boxes clever in Anglican’s gay-row
Online Adoption Agency Denies Service to Gays
75% of Americans want to allow gays in the military
Gay-only retirement village to be built for £12.7 million in Australia
Showtime orders new series with gay content
Bachelorette Party Planning Tips for Summer
Trends for 2008 Include ‘Green Girl’ and Same-Sex Marriage Pre-Wedding Parties
Must-read of the day:
Gay marriage to be legal in America within 200 years
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Testing comment system — Don't use the Comments link below unless you want your comment to disappear later. Use the Comments link above, instead.
Filed under:
Age & Ageing,
Anglicans / Episcopalians,
Barack Obama,
California,
Catholic League,
Catholicism,
Christianity,
Democrats,
Education/Schools,
Election 2008,
Europe,
Events,
FoF/James Dobson,
Hate Crimes,
Homophobia,
John McCain,
Law Enforcement,
Marriage Equality,
Michelle Obama,
Military/DADT,
Parenting,
Radical Religious Right,
South Carolina,
Travel,
United Kingdom & N.I.,
Youth
July 11, 2008
“Idiotic” is the only word I can think of regarding these two unrelated, but too-similar stories:
Nursery alert for racist toddlers
Nursery staff must be alert for racist remarks among toddlers, a [U.K.] government-sponsored agency report has said.
The National Children’s Bureau guide, Young Children and Racial Justice, is meant to help identify potentially racist attitudes in youngsters.
OK, so far, so good. After all, prejudice is learned, and learned early, right? And there are certain red flags in childhood that indicate a possible tendency toward, say, serial murder. So it’s not unreasonable to watch for signs of “potentially racist attitudes,” and try to steer a child in the right direction.
The 336-page guide said staff should investigate the reasons behind apparent racial prejudice.
It said: “A child may react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying, ‘Yuck!”‘.
That may indicate a lack of familiarity with that particular food, or “more seriously a reaction to a food associated with people from a particular ethnic or cultural community”.
What? Are they serious? Did it ever occur to these people that kids say “Yuck!” because, oh, I dunno, maybe the food in question just tastes lousy?
Let’s see… When I was a kid, I hated tomatoes and mushrooms. And since tomatoes and mushrooms are key ingredients in pasta sauce… OMG! That must mean I hated Italians! (Never mind that I’m an Italian-American.) And now that I’m grown up, and I love tomatoes and mushrooms, that must mean I’ve stopped hating Italians.
One more thing: I happen to have a very special fondness for Filipinos (I don’t know why; I just do), and have always wanted to visit the Philippines — but you couldn’t pay me to put a balut in my mouth, no matter who I offended. Do I associate baluts with Filipinos? Sure. Does refusing to eat a two-week-old, half-formed duck embryo in the shell mean I’m having a racist reaction to Filipinos? No, it means I refuse to eat a two-week-old, half-formed duck embryo in the shell, that’s what it means.
Next, an illustration of the frightening ignorance of one Dallas city commissioner, and one Dallas judge:
Dallas County officials spar over ‘black hole’ comment
A special meeting about Dallas County traffic tickets turned tense and bizarre this afternoon.
County commissioners were discussing problems with the central collections office that is used to process traffic ticket payments and handle other paperwork normally done by the JP Courts.
Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections “has become a black hole” because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.
Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud “Excuse me!” He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a “white hole.”
That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.
Mayfield shot back that it was a figure of speech and a science term. …
Good god, every ten-year-old knows what a black hole is!
I bet Price and Jones think the word “niggardly” (adj, “scant, meager, very little”) is a racist slur, too.
Adds the Dallas Morning News:
A black hole, according to Webster’s, is perhaps “the invisible remains of a collapsed star, with an intense gravitational field from which neither light nor matter can escape.”
What do they call collapsed matter so dense that neither light nor matter can penetrate it? Is there such a term? If not, there should be — in honor of John Wiley Price.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Testing comment system — Don't use the Comments link below unless you want your comment to disappear later. Use the Comments link above, instead.
Filed under:
Education/Schools,
Race/Ethnic Issues,
Random Stupidity,
Texas,
United Kingdom & N.I.
July 10, 2008
Statement by US Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
Presenting an Article of Impeachment of the President
WASHINGTON — July 10 — Yesterday in the House, we had a moment of silence for the troops. Today it is time to speak out on behalf of those troops who will be in Iraq for at least another year, courageously representing our nation while their Commander in Chief sent them on a mission that was based on falsehoods about the threat of WMDs from Iraq.
Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, the Congress, the media and the American people heard the terrifying drumbeat of fear from the Bush White House in the form of loud, well-advertised and orchestrated chanting by the President and his Administration about “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” “Nuclear Threats,” “Biological Weapons,” “Chemical Weapons,” “Threats of Imminent Attack,” all calculated to gain media attention, public support and Congressional support for a war against Iraq.
This afternoon I will introduce a single Article of Impeachment of the President.
The Article is entitled: “Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.” The Impeachment resolution focuses narrowly on what the President presented to Congress in the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It does not address the voluminous evidence of orchestrated deceptions which have been well documented by various governmental, non-governmental and media sources.
I understand that many members of Congress voted in good faith to authorize the use of force against Iraq. And I understand that many in the media supported that action. When the President of the United States makes representations on matters of life and death, we all want to believe him and give him the benefit of the doubt. Trust is the glue which holds the fabric of our nation together.
Those in Congress and in the media who acted on the President’s representations of the threat of Iraq WMDs did so trusting that those representations were honest. Unfortunately, they were not. We all know the consequences of the war, the loss of lives and injury to our troops, the deaths of innocent Iraqis, the cost to the American taxpayers. There has been another consequence: Great damage to our Constitution through an unnecessary, illegal war and the destruction of the superior role of Congress in the life of this nation.
Congress must, in the name of the American people, use the one remedy which the Founders provided for an Executive who gravely abused his power: Impeachment. Congress must reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government; bring this President to an accounting, and in doing so reestablish the people’s trust in Congress and in our United States system of government. We must not let this President’s conduct go unchallenged and thereby create a precedent which undermines the Constitution.
In the final analysis this is about our Constitution and whether a President can be held accountable for his actions and his deceptions, especially when the effects of those actions have been so calamitous for America, Iraq and the world. Unless Congress reasserts itself as the power branch of government which the Founders intended, our experiment with a republican form of Government may be nearing an end. But when Congress acts to hold this President accountable it will be redeeming the faith that the Founders had in the power of a system of checks and balances which preserves our republic.
DRAFT
AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSMAN DENNIS J. KUCINICH
JULY 10, 2008
Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Article of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
An Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE ONE
DECEIVING CONGRESS WITH FABRICATED THREATS OF IRAQ WMDs TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization, then acting in his capacity under Article II, Section II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief, to commit US troops to combat in Iraq.
To gain Congressional support for passage of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, the President made the following material representations to the Congress in SJ Res 45:
1. That Iraq was “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability. …”
2. That Iraq was “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability. …”
3. That Iraq was “continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security.”
4. That Iraq has demonstrated a “willingness to attack, the United States….”
5. That “members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. …”
6. The “attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations…”
7. That Iraq “will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, …”
8. That an “extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack,. .. .”
9. That the aforementioned threats “justify action by the United States to defend itself; …”
10. The enactment clause of Section 2 of SJ Res 45, the Authorization of the Use of the United States Armed Forces authorizes the President to “defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq…”
Each consequential representation made by the President to the Congress in SJ Res 45, in subsequent iterations and the final version was unsupported by evidence which was in the control of the White House.
1. Iraq was not “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability…”
“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. … There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has–or will–establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” Defense Intelligence Agency. Iraq–Key WMD Facilities–An Operational Support Study. September 2002. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
“Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information. June 5, 2008. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/…
“In April and early May 2003, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq. Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, Administration officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile biological weapons laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34 misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances. Shortly after the (mobile trailers were found, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued an unclassified white paper evaluating the trailers. The white paper was released without coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was disclosed later that engineers from DIA who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. A former senior intelligence official reported that “only one of 15 intelligence analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the white paper conclusion.” House Committee on Government Reform- Minority Staff. Iraq on the Record: Bush Administration’s Public Statements about Chemical and Biological Weapons. March 16, 2004. Available: http://oversight.house.gov/…
Former chief of CIA covert operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, has said that the CIA had credible sources discounting weapons of mass destruction claims, incuding the primary source of biological weapons claims, an informant who the Germans code-named “Curveball” whom the Germans had informed the Bush Administration was a likely fabricator and including the Niger Yellowcake forgery. Two other former CIA officers confirmed Drumheller’s account to Sidney Blumenthal who reported the story at Salon.com on September 6, 2007.
“In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons (BW) weapons quickly. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level. In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons. … ISG harbors severe doubts about the source’s credibility in regards to the breakout program.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
2. Iraq was not “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability.”
The key finding of the Iraq Survey Group’s (ISG) Report to the Director of Central Intelligence found that “Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date. Saddam Husayn (sic) ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
Claims that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger were not supported by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002.
The CIA had warned the British not to claim Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger prior to the British statement that was later cited by President Bush. George Tenet, July 11, 2003
“One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use n centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have been — it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourthly, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment program. As I stated above, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will naturally continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.” ElBaradei, Mohamed. Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency. Statement to the United Nations Security Council on The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update. March 7, 2003. Available: http://www.iaea.org/…
3. Iraq was not “continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States.”
“Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of [Iraq’s biological, chemical, and nuclear] programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an ‘imminent’ threat.” Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Former CIA Director George J. Tenet at Georgetown University. February 5, 2004. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
“We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq … We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction have had some controls on them … it’s been quite a success for ten years.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State. Interview with Face the Nation. February 11, 2001.
“[British Secret Intelligence Service Chief Sir Richard Billing Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. … The Foreign Secretary (of England) said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.” Rycroft, Matthew; Private Secretary to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Memo to British Ambassador to the United States David Manning. July 23, 2002. Available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/…
4. Iraq did not have the “willingness to attack, the United States.”
“The fact of the matter is that both baskets, the UN basket and what we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. His forces are about one-third their original size. They really don’t possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State. Transcript of Remarks made to German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. February 2001. Available: http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/…
The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or [chemical or biological weapons] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
5. Iraq had no connection with the attacks of 9/11, or with al-Qaida’s role in 9/11.
“The report [of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] documents significant instances in which the Admnistration went beyond what the Intelligence Community knew or believed in making public claims, most notably on the false assertion that Iraq and al-Qaida had an operational partnership and joint involvement in carrying out the attacks of September 11th. The President and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against al-Qaida as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the Nation to war on false premises.” Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Additional Views of Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. Page 90. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/…
Richard Clarke’s memo of September 18, 2001, titled Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks, and that there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons http://www.9-11commission.gov/… (page 334).
On September 17, 2003, President Bush said: “No, we’ve no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th. What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.” Available: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/…
On June 16, 2004, a Staff Report from the 9/11 Commission stated: “There has been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. … Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.” Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
“Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon’s inspector general.
“Feith’s office ‘was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,’ according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith’s activities as ‘an alternative intelligence assessment process.’” Pincus, Walter and Smith, R. Jeffrey. “Official’s Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted, ‘Dubious’ Intelligence Fueled Push for War.” Washington Post. February 9, 2007. A1.
6. Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer to anyone.
Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States:
According to information in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the Administration at the time they were seeking Congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would transfer weapons to a terrorist organization only if “sufficiently desperate” because it feared that “an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable… ”
“Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks — more likely with biological than chemical agents — probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
“The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.
“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida — with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States — would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
“In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.” Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
7. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and therefore had no capability of launching a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so…”
Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States:
According to information in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the Administration at the time they were seeking Congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would transfer weapons to a terrorist organization only if “sufficiently desperate” because it feared that “an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable…” October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
“Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks - more likely with biological than chemical agents - probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.”
“The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.”
“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida - with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States - would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.”
“In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”
As reported in the Washington Post on March 1, 2003, in 1995, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel had informed US and British intelligence officers that “all weapons–biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.” Lynch, Colum. “Iraqi Defector Claimed Arms Were Destroyed by 1995.” Washington Post. A15. March 1, 2003.
“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. … There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has–or will–establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” Defense Intelligence Agency. Iraq–Key WMD Facilities–An Operational Support Study. September 2002. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
8. There was not a real risk of an “extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack” because Iraq had no capability of attacking the United States.
“Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) War. … [Iraq is] not threatening America.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State.
9. The aforementioned evidence did not “justify the use of force by the United States to defend itself” because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, or have the intention or capability of using the non-existent WMD’s against the United States.
10. Since there was no threat posed by Iraq to the United States, the enactment clause was predicated on lying to Congress.
Congress relied on the information provided to it by the President of the United States. Congress provided the President with the authorization to use military force that he requested. As a consequence of the fraudulent representations made to the Congress, the United States Armed Forces, under the direction of George Bush as Commander in Chief, pursuant to Section 3 of the Authorization for the Use of Force which President Bush requested, invaded Iraq and occupies it to this day, at the cost of 4,116 lives of US service men and women, injuries to over 30,000 of our troops, the deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, the destruction of Iraq, and a long term cost over $3 trillion.
President Bush’s misrepresentations to Congress to induce passage of a use of force resolution is subversive of the Constitutional system of checks and balances, destructive of Congress’ sole prerogative to declare war under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and is therefore a High Crime. An even greater offense by the President of the United States occurs in his capacity as Commander in Chief, because he knowingly placed the men and women of the United States Armed Forces in harm’s way, jeopardizing their lives and their families’ future, for reasons that to this date have not been established in fact.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and of those members of the Armed Forces who put their lives on the line pursuant to the falsehoods of the President. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Testing comment system — Don't use the Comments link below unless you want your comment to disappear later. Use the Comments link above, instead.
Filed under:
Afghanistan,
Colin Powell,
Condoleezza Rice,
Dennis Kucinich,
Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld,
George W. Bush,
Homeland Insecurity,
Iraq,
Press Releases,
September 11,
U.S. Congress,
United Kingdom & N.I.
June 27, 2008
London, UK, June 27, 2008 — [OUT NOW] — A new travel company poster campaign launched today in London’s Underground network is set to smash through the supposed insult value of “so gay”, by reclaiming the term as part of an advertising slogan.
In a week where consumer brand Heinz pulled an ad in the UK they feared might be “too gay”, the new “So Gay” campaign for leading gay specialist travel company Amro Worldwide deliberately sets out to turn the phrase on its head.
The campaign, designed by leading gay marketing agency Out Now is the largest gay travel advertising campaign to use mainstream media ever seen in the UK. More than 2 million people will view the campaign starting from today.
The new campaign equates being “so gay” with a travel destination really being “so good” — as seen from a gay and lesbian perspective.
According to the CEO of Amro Worldwide, Andrew Roberts, the campaign has two very important messages it seeks to communicate.
“Clearly we want the many thousands of gays and lesbians travelling to London Pride next month to know that Amro is a travel company with hand picked travel options designed especially for the gay travel market,” says Mr Roberts. “We also wanted to send a clear message to everyone who sees this campaign that it is long past time that ’so gay’ should be used as a negative phrase of disapproval. From where we sit, and for all our many customers, being described as ’so gay’ is not a negative thing at all. We think it is just great to be so gay.”
So too it seems do many of the leading tourism destination marketing offices of the United States.
Amro’s “So Gay” campaign has received the funding and support of six leading US gay travel destinations: Atlanta, Boston, Las Vegas, New Orleans, South Carolina and Washington, DC.
The ‘So Gay’ advertising campaign was created for Amro by specialist gay marketing agency, Out Now.
Out Now’s CEO, Ian Johnson said: “For all people seeing this campaign it is important to know that using ’so gay’ as a putdown is far from clever in the eyes of lesbian and gay people. We wanted to reclaim that for the gay community. It is really about standing up and saying: You say: ‘So gay’? Then I say: ‘So what!’”
“In a week where Heinz lost its gay marketing mojo, we are very proud to bring the gayest ever mainstream media advertising campaign to London Underground,” Johnson added.
According to Kirsty Dillury, spokesperson for South Carolina Tourism — the new “So Gay” campaign is an important one.
“South Carolina has a lot to offer gay travellers, and we think that people may be surprised to see our destination reaching out to the gay market,” said Ms Dillury. “We are delighted to be involved with the ‘So Gay’ campaign in particular as it sends a powerful positive message to everyone that there is nothing wrong at all with a destination being described as ’so gay’. For our gay visitors it is actually quite wonderful for them to discover just how much South Carolina has to offer — from stunning plantation homes to miles of wide sandy beaches.”
Roberts added: “To be gay in the UK in 2008 is far from insulting. It is significant, it is visible and it is now mainstream. That is why we chose to run this particular campaign in underground stations rather than in gay media. All consumers need to know that being ’so gay’ is now ’so okay.”
Carlos Kytka, European Ambassador of the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association agreed. “As an active member of the IGLTA, Amro has already proved itself to be at the forefront of gay travel,” Kytka said. “All our research shows that gay people appreciate being made to feel welcome above all else. This campaign breaks new ground by using mainstream media to send the message that these destinations clearly embrace their gay visitors.”
Lotte Jeffs, Travel Editor for Europe’s leading lesbian media title DIVA praised the new campaign. “I think it’s great that leading US travel destinations have bought into Amro Worldwide’s idea of reclaiming ’so gay’ and equating it with a positive message in their latest ad campaign,” said Jeffs. “Not only will it make gay and lesbian travellers feel like these US cities want our custom and our kudos — London’s commuters will be forced to think twice before calling something ’so gay’ again.”
The Amro Worldwide “So Gay” poster campaign runs on escalators in Leicester Square, and in elevators at Covent Garden London Underground stations, from June 27 until July 12, 2008.
Out Now Consulting is a leading global gay marketing specialist agency, founded in 1992. Clients include Barclays, IBM, Toyota, Citibank, German National Tourist Office, Visit Britain, Lufthansa and Time Inc. Magazines. Out Now recently won the “Outstanding Interactive” category in New York at the “Images in Advertising” awards for an online campaign for their client Lufthansa.
Amro Worldwide has carved a leading edge niche in the specialist expertise of gay travel during the past seven years. Amro is ATOL bonded, and offers clients the flexibility to order up their next holiday online with Amro Collection — or take advantage of the extensive knowledge of Amro’s personal travel consultants via the Amro A La Carte service. Amro management has personally stayed with every property they sell, giving rise to their corporate motto: Gay Travel — Tried, and Trusted.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Testing comment system — Don't use the Comments link below unless you want your comment to disappear later. Use the Comments link above, instead.
Filed under:
Business/Economy,
Press Releases,
Travel,
United Kingdom & N.I.,
United States
It looks like Chad Prosser, director of South Carolina’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, is a big, fat liar* — and that some poor schmuck fell on his sword to cover Prosser’s butt.
