Soapbox Archive

Jury Seated in Abu Ghraib Abuse Case

By T.A. BADGER

FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) - A 10-man jury was seated Friday in the military trial of the accused ringleader in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

Opening statements were scheduled to begin Monday in the court-martial of Spc. Charles Graner, the first soldier to be tried in the case.

The jury is comprised of four officers and six enlisted men. Two prospective jurors were dismissed, including one who said he was embarrassed as an Army officer after seeing photos of the abuse.

A list of potential witnesses was released during jury selection.

Among them are the four other soldiers who have reached plea deals after being charged with Abu Ghraib abuses: Pvt. Ivan Frederick, Spc. Megan Ambuhl, Spc. Jeremy Sivits and Spc. Armin Cruz.

Am I the only one that finds it odd that all of the people listed so far are E-4 and below including Graner? Doesn’t it seem like this is something that would be very hard to hide from the higher ranking enlisted stationed there? If there were no orders given to “soften up the prisoners” I can see how maybe no officers would know, but an E-7 or E-8? Come on! (For those people not familiar with the military E-4 and below are the cannon fodder of the military.)

On Thursday, prosecutors dropped charges of obstruction of justice, adultery, and two of four assault charges Graner faced.

Adultery – gimme a fuckin break! Why is this archaic law still in the military books? Where the hell is the religious freedom and separation of church and state and why hasn’t anyone tried to retire it? What the hell do they expect to happen when you take a bunch of eighteen to mid-twenty-some-things away from their families for months and sometimes years at a time? It’s really beyond me how anyone can think that adultery or any other sex act between consenting adults should be regulated by the government. It’s between the individuals involved in the sex act and anyone those individuals have made monogamous commitments with.

Capt. Steven Neill, a spokesman for the prosecution, would not say why they were dropped, only that it is usually done for evidentiary issues or strategic reasons.

Uumm yeah evidentiary, because they maybe didn’t have enough on Graner to actually nail him with real charges, and strategic, because if this falls through they can always go back and nail him for it later. That way they aren’t accused of double jeopardy.

Guy Womack, Graner’s attorney, said he thinks the charges were dropped because his client was wrongly accused of those counts.

I think Graner needs a better attorney if he’s that stupid…the chick was pregnant…she gave birth…it wasn’t immaculate fucking conception, just fucking. And the two assault charges…well maybe that’s all the attorney was referring to when he was quoted.

Graner, 36, of Uniontown, Pa., faces up to 17 1/2 years in a military prison on charges of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, assault and committing indecent acts. He had faced up to 24 1/2 years before the four charges were dropped.

Seven jurors must agree on a verdict.

Col. Allen Batschelet was dismissed as a prospective juror after he told the judge, Col. James Pohl, that he was embarrassed as an Army officer after seeing the photos. Batschelet admitted that he had strong views about the abuse scandal and that he would not be able to set those views aside as a juror.

Prosecutors dismissed Lt. Col. Mark Kormos without explanation.

Three other soldiers from the Maryland-based 372nd Military Police Company also face trials.

Among them is Pfc. Lynndie England, who gave birth in October to a child that Army prosecutors claim was fathered by Graner. Her trial at Fort Hood has not yet been scheduled.

In one photo taken at Abu Ghraib, Graner is shown giving a thumbs-up behind a pile of naked Iraq prisoners. Another photo shows him cocking his fist as if to punch a hooded detainee.

Graner, an ex-prison guard, is also accused of jumping on detainees, stomping on their hands and feet, and punching one man in the temple hard enough to knock him out and require medical treatment.

Womack, a former Marine Corps lawyer, made his client’s defense clear at a pretrial hearing last month: Graner was ordered by higher-ranking soldiers and other government agents to go rough on detainees to soften them up for interrogators.

Womack said any abusive acts Graner may have committed at Abu Ghraib were not crimes because the soldier had no choice but to obey orders.

Lawyers for the other Abu Ghraib defendants will be closely watching Graner’s trial.

“If Graner is successful in his defense, then we’ve been assured that the prosecution will take an entirely different, enlightened position pertaining to our case,” said attorney Paul Bergrin, whose client, Sgt. Javal Davis, is scheduled for trial in February.

Should Graner be convicted, Bergrin said he may rethink his strategy of going to trial and instead pursue a plea bargain for Davis.

Alberto Gonzales Condemns Torture Tactics

By JESSE J. HOLLAND

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales, under scorching criticism from senators, condemned torture as an interrogation tactic Thursday and promised to prosecute abusers of terror suspects. He also disclosed the White House was looking at trying to change the Geneva Conventions that protect prisoner rights.

So let me get this straight…Alberto said the torture acts that our soldiers were caught doing for the propose of interrogation were wrong and the participants should be prosecuted (note he didn’t say, or the writer of this article didn’t say that they should be punished…just prosecuted), but in the same breath or from this paragraph it looks like the same breath Alberto says that they’re going to change the conventions that protect prisoner rights. Since the Geneva Convention already pretty clear on the topic of torturing prisoners I can only assume that Alberto wishes to eradicate their rights to humane treatment. – What a great candidate for Attorney General who better to take the “Just” out of Justice!

Pressed at his confirmation hearing by senators from both parties, the White House counsel defended his advice to President Bush that the treaty’s protections did not extend to al-Qaida and other suspected terrorists.

You know I’d really like to hear his argument for this. If it’s that they aren’t proper military than shouldn’t we treat them as civilians and…oh wait we bombed civilians and liberated man of them of their arms and legs…never mind. I suppose they should be bowing to the soldiers that disrespected their religious beliefs and feel honored that this country with such a strong “moral fabric” was so compassionate towards them.

“Torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration,” Gonzales told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I will ensure the Department of Justice aggressively pursues those responsible for such abhorrent actions.”

Right! More precisely you’ll make sure that the little E-4’s and E-3’s will be punished for their part, but the ones who either at worst gave the order or at best turned a blind eye will continue on their merry little career. You can’t tell me this shit went on without anyone above them knowing anything.

Gonzales said that as attorney general, he would abide by the 1949 Geneva treaty. But he also said the White House was looking at the possibility of seeking revisions to the conventions.

“Now I’m not suggesting that the principles, the basic treatment of human beings, should be revisited,” Gonzales said. “But there has been some very preliminary discussion: Is this something that we ought to look at?”

Alberto doesn’t want to take away the basic treatment of humans, but something needs to change? Who wants to bet me that this guy is a fan of S&M and believes everybody needs a little spanking?

He said the discussions have not gone far. “It’s not been a systematic project or effort to look at this question,” Gonzales said. “But some people I deal with, the lawyers, indicate maybe this is something we should look at.”

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said later that Gonzales was referring to “some preliminary, staff-level discussions about recommendations by the 9-11 commission and the Schlesinger Task Force” that investigated prisoner abuses. “They recommended that the government should consider developing a new legal standard or new rules for detainees in the war on terrorism,” McClellan said.

Sen. Charles Schumer later urged on Bush to consult Congress and he requested a congressional hearing. “My concern is not that these discussions are taking place, but that they are taking place in secret, behind closed doors, with no outside involvement,” Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote the president.

Democrats - and Republicans, at times - criticized the Bush administration’s policies on aggressive interrogation of terrorism suspects.

Oh those fuckin pansies their just upset with baby Bush because he left a cum stain on some expensive White House rug while reviewing some aggressive interrogation.

Gonzales is expected to be confirmed when Congress returns after Bush’s inauguration on Jan. 20. He would be the nation’s first Hispanic attorney general and replace John Ashcroft.

Democrats said it was Gonzales’ January 2002 memo that led to the abuse of suspected terrorists. He had argued in his memo that the fight against terrorism “renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.”

Yeah treating prisoners as humans and respecting their beliefs – that’s so quaint, so Vlad the Impaler. I can see why they want to change it. I mean who would want to be known as being so soft and sissy like! People from the opponent’s side would be giving themselves up left and right rendering the opponent completely helpless and that just wouldn’t be any fun. Beating them till the say Uncle and tell us whatever we want to hear – now that’s the way to handle things. Everyone knows torture is how you get the most reliable information.

In the White House, Gonzales was at the center of decisions about “the legality of detention and interrogation methods that have been seen as tantamount to torture,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Added Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.: The “legal positions that you have supported have been used by the administration, the military and the CIA to justify torture and Geneva Conventions violations by military and civilian personnel.”

Gonzales, wearing an American flag pin in his lapel, sat alone at the witness table. Family members sat behind him in the crowded hearing room. Senators addressed the former Texas Supreme Court justice as “judge,” but pressed him repeatedly on administration policies.

Gonzales refused to back away from his legal opinion to Bush that terrorists captured overseas by Americans do not merit the conventions’ protections.

Gonzales refused to back away from his legal opinion – aawww it’s like Bush’s brother from another mother.

“My judgment was … that it would not apply to al-Qaida - they weren’t a signatory to the convention,” he said.

OH!! It’s the good ‘ol “but Billy’s mom let’s him watch rated ‘R’ movies” argument, yeah that always went over well at my house. The response to that was usually something like, “Do I look like Billy’s mom?”

Gonzales denied that any of the memos he wrote or reviewed in the White House had anything to do with the abuse.

“Would you not concede that your decision and the decision of the president to call into question the definition of torture, the need to comply with the Geneva Convention at least opened up a permissive environment of conduct?” asked Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat.

Bravo! Good job. I only wish someone had the balls to ask Dubya that type of question…not that he would answer it.

Gonzales said he was sickened and outraged by photos of abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. He described the U.S. troops in those photos as “people who were morally bankrupt having fun.” Other abuses of foreign detainees probably were caused because “there wasn’t adequate training, there wasn’t adequate supervision.”

If he had only left out the “having fun” part out. We may have advanced a lot technologically, but we’re only days from being savage beasts with that said I don’t think further supervision would have improved anything. There were people including Red Cross all around and it was still openly going on. I can’t comment on the amount of training, but I think it would be worse if random exceptions are made in the Geneva Convention.

“I respectfully disagree that there was some kind of permissive environment,” he said.

Gonzales’ response to some questions seemed to contradict his description of the conventions in his January 2002 memo.

“I consider the Geneva Convention neither obsolete or quaint,” he said at the hearing, promising to ensure U.S. compliance “with all of its legal obligations in fighting the war on terror.”

Gonzales declined to give a legal opinion on the prisoner abuse, suggesting he did not want to prejudice a possible criminal case. That led to a 10-minute lecture from Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., on Democrats’ long-standing complaints about Bush nominees’ refusal to directly answer their questions.

“We’re looking for candor, old buddy,” Biden said. “I love you, but you’re not very candid so far.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the administration “dramatically undermined the war effort” by “getting cute with the law.”

“I think you weaken yourself as a nation when you try to play cute and become more like your enemy instead of like who you want to be,” he said.

Gonzales objected to Graham’s characterizations and noted the beheadings of Americans by terrorists. “We are nothing like our enemies, senator,” Gonzales said.

“But we’re not like who we want to be and who we have been, and that’s the point I’m trying to make,” Graham responded. “When you start looking at torture statutes and you look at ways around the spirit of the law, you’re losing the moral high ground. … I do believe that we’ve lost our way.”

After hearing from Gonzales for more than seven hours, senators listened to three critics of the administration’s policy on treatment of detainees. One of the witnesses, John D. Hutson, dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., said Gonzales’ memo was “shallow in its legal analysis, shortsighted in its implications, and altogether ill-advised. Frankly, it was just wrong.”

During his testimony, Gonzales also:

_supported the use of the Patriot Act, the government’s post-Sept. 1 anti-terrorism. “I believe that in part because of the Patriot Act there has not been a domestic attack on United States soil since 9/11,” he said.

_sidestepped questions on whether it was legal for Senate Democrats to filibuster Bush’s judicial nominations last year.

_promised that his friendship with Bush would not affect him performance as attorney general. “I will no longer represent only the White House,” he said. “I will represent the United States of America and its people. I understand the difference between the two roles.”

_pledged support for Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision on a woman’s right to an abortion. “As far as I’m concerned, it is the law of the land and I will enforce it,” he said.

_said he would defend in court the 1996 law in which Congress said states do not have to recognize gay marriages.

_brushed off talk that he eventually be nominated for the Supreme Court if a vacancy occurs.

Schumer suggested that Democrats who supported Gonzales for attorney general would not necessarily do the same if he were picked for the high court.

The title of this post and all the block quoted areas are unedited sections of an email I received from a conservative relative of mine. I sent this response back to her:
Comments from the left side of the peanut gallery…

History began some 12,000 years ago. Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the winter and would go to the coast to live on fish and lobster in the summer.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundations of modern civilization, and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals & Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as “the Conservative movement.”

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly barbeque and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing.

This was the beginning of “the Liberal movement.”

I like how it seems as if these “liberals” couldn’t survive with out the “conservatives”…as if meat is the only source of food, and is absolutely necessary to sustain life. At the time it may have been true, but there was more of a co-dependency that wasn’t mentioned…I’m sure they just overlooked that without the sewing of clothes the conservatives would burn in the sun and freeze in the cold.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as ‘girleymen.’

So there were no women before this?…or were ALL women naturally liberal because of their useless ‘girley’ jobs?…I wish the latter was the case today, then maybe dubya would have gotten the boot.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Those are all very nice, but obviously made to be very insignificant and even rude. How about mentioning the greatest achievement…science? It was liberals that stumbled upon the not so “girlie” discovery of fission of the uranium nucleus, and it was a pacifist liberal (yes I know some think that’s redundant), Einstein, actually pushed for the president to prepare for nuclear warfare during WWII. It was a liberal that pushed for the invention of the pill, and it’s liberals that constantly fight for our rights (see ACLU).

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant.

Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Who cares. As George Carlin would say, “I’ll leave the symbols to the symbol-minded.”

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

I can’t drink beer at all. I think I’m allergic to the hops, which is fine because it all tastes like shit to me. I’m not a wine drinker either, except ice wine, and water is just evil. There is no taste to it at all. For alcoholic drinks I prefer something mixed with rum otherwise just juice and milk for me. And I don’t like to eat hockey pucks…My steak should be pink in the middle. I tent to not eat raw fish unless it’s Sushi, which is phenomenal, tofu is fine too (it tastes like whatever it was cooked with, so you can’t really go wrong with it), but I don’t think I’ve ever had French food. I might get to try some when I go to Spain this spring…we might wander across the border for a day.

Another interesting revolutionary side note, most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.

humf…tell that to Kurt.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals.

Again scientists are neglected, and some liberals are engineers, web developers, and even former military.

Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t “fair” to make the pitcher also bat.

I don’t know jack about sports.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes and generally anyone who works productively outside government.

Love the wording on this one…”still provide for their women”. Women are possessions, and incapable of caring for themselves? I don’t buy into that “weaker sex” theory.

Rodeo cowboys and athletes are productive workers?…yeah right!…They’re entertainers just like the “dreamers in Hollywood”. The only difference is that athletes and rodeo cowboys destroy their bodies and are forced to retire at an early age.

So the conservative politicians are separate from other conservatives?…why?…does it not fit in with the view of conservatives being hard working?

Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

This implies liberals are lazy…I work for a living, and know many liberals that work! I think that many liberals just don’t live to work, but rather work to live, or lie in the middle somewhere.

Liberals produce little or nothing.

Thanks to the current conservative regime there are fewer people on both sides of the political fence producing anything in this country.

They like to “govern” the producers and decide what to do with the production.

Really, and the conservatives don’t get joy from governing?…this is why conservative politicians were left out in the statements above isn’t it? What about the FCC, which is run by Colin Powell’s son, arbitrarily enforcing penalties against some and not for others. The FCC is able to evoke “indecency” on their whim since it hasn’t ever been defined. There are currently things that were perfectly ok to broadcast in the 70’s and 80’s that are not ok today.

Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans.

I can’t speak for all liberals but for me, Yes it’s true.

That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America.

uuhh no. I don’t think there was a political difference between the people who left and those who stayed, however it’s true that after Bush was reelected many more American’s fled to Canada than in years past. I would assume the majority were liberal.

They crept in after the Wild West was tame and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.

uumm actually many of the people that drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence were pretty liberal (http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html).

I think the more for nothing idea mostly a conservative one; see Enron CEO, and corporate executives that fund conservative politicians so that they may continue to outsource jobs to countries with lower wage requirements.

I think I’ll start this year on the left as I have for at least the past nine years.

From USATODAY.com Posted 11/15/2004

The Associated Press is reporting that a senior administration official says President Bush has asked national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to replace Powell as Secretary of State.

Well there’s yet another example of Bush’s dart throw decision making skills. Hhhmmm I need a security adviser…hey I know how about the person that needs a title more blunt than “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”

Without 911 I don’t think any administration could have convinced the people of the United States to wait in long security lines and take off their shoes in order to board a plane just because the Government was sure there was a big threat, but I do think any competent administration would have, as vague it was, investigated the report entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” (from CNN.com Wednesday May 19, 2004.)

To the people that voted for a-hole for moral issues I’d like to ask, is lying about reasons for going into war to kill brown skin people good morals?…because everyone knows that all brown skin people were in it together and all out to gets us cause “they hate us for having freedom”. They wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about a bj, but lying about war that’s all fine ‘n dandy. Envious sexually deprived morons!

And the people that voted for the dim son because they think he can best lead the war on “terra”…the F&*%#@ terrorist just sent a tape saying, “hello? remember me?…the one that brought down the towers. Tag you’re it!” But dip sh*$ is too damn busy poking a bees nest with a stick while Haliburton is ready to serve the honey (which reminds me of another questionable moral issue). War-mongering knuckle-dragging Neanderthals!

The tax cuts…oh the wonderful $300 that lines our pockets if we just vote for the arrogant hypocrite that paid for an girlfriend to get an abortion during his coke-head days. Wow $300 tax cut…wonderful…if you have a job! I mean $300 that could buy you a RCA 27″ Flat-Screen TV at WalMart so you can continue your daily six o-clock news brain-washing with bush regiment and you still have a whopping $53 left. Stupid lemmings!

Spain here I come!

From about.com…

Election 2000

Media silences George W. Bush abortion story
11/08/00 Update: According to the Politex Ticker at Bushwatch.com, columnist Liz Smith’s November 6th column was suppressed by both the New York Post and Newsday for mentioning my article on the media’s failure to report a Bush abortion story. It’s just too hot for mainstream media to handle. Here’s the full story from Politex:

POLITEX TICKER…LAST UPDATED 8:00 CT, 11/7/00…”Buried in the middle of [today's] Armey Archerd piece is the blockbuster that on Mon. Nov 6 Liz Smith ran an item in her column about Larry Flynt and the GW Bush abortion. That item was CENSORED by both the NY Post and NY Newsday. It ran in the N.J. Star Ledger.” –Lynn Samuels…

HERE’S THE LIZ SMITH ITEM THAT WAS TOO HOT FOR THE NY POST AND NEWSDAY - “Hot on the heels of the George W. Bush DUI revelation (in Maine it’s called OUI - Operating Under the Influence), comes word that porn-king muckraker Larry Flynt is charging that a girlfriend of W’s back in 1970 had an abortion. But that’s not the story as there’s no evidence that Bush even knew about the pregnancy. The real story according to the Internet’s About.com - is that Flynt’s remarks were apparently censored from CNN’s ‘Crossfire’ and the entire transcript of the show vanished from the CNN Web site. The media has been willing to crucify Bill and Hillary Clinton with the worst possible sort of specious rumor-mongering, so why was this sleazy tidbit too hot for the ‘responsible’ press to ask about?”

10/31/00: Media Doesn’t Ask About Bush Abortion Story
Did George W. Bush get a girlfriend pregnant in 1970? Did she have an abortion?
Muckraker Larry Flynt says so, and Larry Flynt has always been accurate in what he says about politicians and their sex lives before. Hypocritical Republicans like Bob Livingston—who had to resign as Speaker of the House of Representatives when Flynt exposed his adulteries—have learned to dread hearing that Flynt is on their case.

So why is this story being ignored and even censored by American news organizations?
If you’re Internet-savvy, you’ve probably heard about the story. But if your main source of news is the traditional media—newspapers and television—you probably haven’t. And nobody is quite sure why.

Larry Flynt went public with the question on CNN’s “Crossfire” back on October 20. The transcript of that show was first edited to remove Flynt’s comments about Bush’s girlfriend’s abortion. Then the transcript of the entire show disappeared from CNN’s web site. Virtually no other print or television news sources in America have picked it up, although the BBC has mentioned it.

And that’s the real story here, not whether George W. Bush was involved in an abortion. Have the news sources who were falling over themselves to report every rumor about Bill Clinton—with absolutely no corroboration—suddenly been overcome by journalistic ethics? Have we returned to the days when no story was reported unless confirmed by at least two independent sources?

It’s not as if the media have been unwilling to trouble Bush in the past. Questions about George W.’s cocaine use were everywhere for a while during the primary campaign, and Bush’s reluctance to deny having used the drug certainly added fuel to that fire. And while Larry Flynt is a sleazemeister as well as a muckraker, the media were happy to report his charges against the Republican sex hypocrites involved in Clinton’s impeachment.

Perhaps the traditional media have been reluctant to pick up the Bush abortion story because they don’t want to introduce such a potentially explosive topic with the outcome of this presidential election up for grabs. The Bush campaign and the Republican party are avoiding the issue of abortion altogether, knowing that Bush will lose the election if voters realize that he plans to do away with a woman’s right to choose.

But web-based news sources haven’t been as cautious. Several web sites, including the American Atheists and American Politics Journal sites, have reported not only Flynt’s charges but CNN’s censorship of the “Crossfire” transcript.

Less seriously, anti-abortion web journalist Matt Drudge—who claimed to have found Bill Clinton’s illegitimate child with an African American prostitute not long ago (DNA tests proved the boy wasn’t Clinton’s)—reported that his anonymous sources say the Bush story isn’t true. Not to be outdone, “America’s Best Christian” Betty Bowers weighed in with her own parody: “Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer responded by saying ‘Governor Bush has not changed his position on abortion. He is no hypocrite. It was illegal when he had it done and he wants it to be illegal for everyone else, too. Fair is fair.’ ”

Internet discussion forums and Usenet news groups are abuzz with the issue as well.
Flynt also appeared on San Francisco’s KGO talk radio, an ABC affiliate. He told host Bernie Ward that he has affidavits from four witnesses about the Bush story, but said he has no evidence that Bush encouraged the abortion or even knew his girlfriend was pregnant.

Flynt says he can’t publish the story because the woman involved refuses to corroborate it. In an online chat at the CNN web site, which has now vanished too, Flynt noted that “without her willingness, we don’t feel that we’re on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because should she say it never happened, then we’ve got a potential libel suit. But we know we have enough evidence that we believe completely.

“One of the things that interested us,” Flynt added, “was that this abortion took place before Roe vs. Wade, in 1970, which made it a crime at the time. I’d just like the national media to ask him if abortion is okay for him and his family, but not for the rest of America.”
Why haven’t the media asked?

By Margaret Sykes
About Pro-Choice Views Guide

By Michael Laris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 14, 2004; Page A06
MOON TOWNSHIP, Pa., Oct. 13 — Lynne V. Cheney, wife of Vice President Cheney, accused John F. Kerry on Wednesday night of “a cheap and tawdry political trick” and said he “is not a good man” after he brought up their daughter’s homosexuality at the final presidential debate.

What the fuck?…he’s not a good man for mentioning what was already brought up in the vice presidential debate? She should blame her husband for adding their daughter to the list of topics. Dick Cheney brought it up when he failed to tow the party line on August 25, 2004 and put his own two cents in about Bush’s little pet project of a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage.

From cnn.com Wednesday, August 25, 2004

At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,” when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. … People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

“The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage,” he said.

Mary Cheney, one of the vice president’s two daughters and an official of the Bush-Cheney campaign, has been open about her lesbian status. The candidates were asked if they believe homosexuality is a choice, and President Bush did not mention Mary Cheney. Then Kerry said, “If you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.”

Oh how awful of Kerry to suggest that Mary Cheney is just being who she is…the gall of that man for suggesting that there isn’t something horribly wrong with Lynne Cheney’s daughter. That is just so disrespectful!

Lynne Cheney issued her post-debate rebuke to a cheering crowd outside Pittsburgh. “The only thing I can conclude is he is not a good man. I’m speaking as a mom,” she said. “What a cheap and tawdry political trick.”

Yes it’s really is a cheap trick for him to suggest that the government has no business meddling in the bedrooms of consenting adults, and that everyone including Lynne Cheney’s daughter should have equal rights to see their life partner in the hospital and to share custody of their partner’s biological and/or adopted children. I mean if you just simply ignore the divorce rate you’ll know that marriage is just so damn sacred that it should only be between those who can have intercourse in the only acceptable fashion!

Steven Fisher, communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay and lesbian political organization, said Kerry “was speaking to millions of American families who, like the Cheneys, have gay friends and family members.”

Kerry’s running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), also made a reference to the sexual orientation of Cheney’s daughter, during the vice presidential debates, and Republicans complained that it was an underhanded way of trying to hurt the Bush-Cheney ticket with religious conservatives.

If this hurt the Bush-Cheney ticket with the religious conservatives it’s their own fault for not following the wholly babble to the letter. They should have had Mary Cheney put to death when she came out of the closet.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. — Lev.20:13

I just can’t even believe that gay marriage is a political issue. The government should have absolutely no part in marriage (that includes tax relief/penalties for being the focus during a religious ritual). Marriage is strictly a religious union that should only be recognized which ever church performs the ceremony. If the religious clubhouse door has a “no gays allowed” sign, and you’re a homosexual that wants a marriage find a more accepting place. If you want the government to recognize your union whether gay, straight, or undecided you should be able to get a legal contract called a civil union! As long as all participants in the contract are of the determined legal age and are not signing under duress who the fuck gives a shit!!! Nobody seems to mind collecting taxes from homosexuals…they pay into the system they should have the rights, and privileges from the government that go with it.

Bush and all his denials…one that really stood out immediately was when the arrogant jackass denied saying that he really didn’t give a rat’s ass about catching Osama.
This transcript of last night’s debate was taken from the official White House website:

SENATOR KERRY: Yes. When the President had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of him, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped. Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught, dead or alive, this President was asked, where is Osama bin Laden? He said, I don’t know, I don’t really think about him very much, I’m not that concerned. We need a President who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Gosh, I don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. That’s kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course, we’re worried about Osama bin Laden. We’re on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We’re using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

My opponent said this war is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement. No, this is a — war is a matter of using every asset at our disposal to keep the American people protected.

If I were a Bush supporter I would be wondering why he didn’t even attempt to explain the logic behind letting Osama’s allies take care of catching Osama, but then again I have this annoying habit of using my brain instead of allowing the TV to be my wet nurse. No where does Bush ever deny or explain outsourcing the job of capturing Osama to the same people that were very recently good buddies with Terrorist Leader number one. The royal idiot only laughs and calls the words Kerry quoted, which are easily found on the official White House website dated March 13th 2002, an exaggeration. The imbecile gave a strong 5 second rebuttal focusing only on the “I’m not that concerned” quote, and used the highly advanced third grader’s argumentative tactic of, “nu uh I didn’t say that”.

Question: Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part — deep in your heart, don’t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won’t really eliminate the threat of –

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is — really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he’s just — he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is — as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide — if, in fact, he’s hiding at all.

So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There’s going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I’m just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We’re tough, we’re strong, they’re well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Question: But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became — we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we — excuse me for a minute — and if we find a training camp, we’ll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That’s one of the things — part of the new phase that’s becoming apparent to the American people is that we’re working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we’ve got more work to do. See, that’s the thing the American people have got to understand, that we’ve only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don’t know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it’s going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I’m not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

I’d really like the pres. to explain why he outsourced the terrorist hunting job he seemed so eager to let our own troops do to the friends of Osama (the terrorist we’re supposed to be after). From the Washingtonpost.com April 17, 2002 page A01 By Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writers

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan’s mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December.

After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command, describe the episode as a significant defeat for the United States. A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war’s operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda’s leader. Without professing second thoughts about Tora Bora, Franks has changed his approach fundamentally in subsequent battles, using Americans on the ground as first-line combat units.

In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to promises to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing al Qaeda fighters. Franks did not perceive the setbacks soon enough, some officials said, because he ran the war from Tampa with no commander on the scene above the rank of lieutenant colonel. The first Americans did not arrive until three days into the fighting. “No one had the big picture,” one defense official said.

This is straight from The White House, unedited from their own site as of 10:50am (Pacific Time).

President Signs Defense Bill
Remarks by the President at the Signing of H.R. 4613, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005
Room 350, Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building

9:56 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated.

America and our allies are fighting a new kind of war against a different kind of enemy. This conflict places great demands on the men and women of our armed forces, including our Guard and Reserve. They have met every test. They’ve risen to every challenge.

President George W. Bush signs H.R.4613, The Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building Thursday, Aug. 5, 2004. The bill commits 391 billion dollars for the Department of Defense. “In the last three years, our military men and women have struck a series of decisive blows against the enemy,” said the President. “They have relentlessly attacked the al Qaeda network. They’ve killed or captured many of its leaders. They’ve destroyed its terror camps. We’re disrupting its plans. We’re doing our duty.” White House photo by Eric Draper. The war also places demands on those of us in government. We took an oath to protect our country. We have a solemn responsibility to support the servicemen and women who defend us in the field of battle. The Defense appropriations bill I will sign today commits $391 billion toward meeting that responsibility. With this legislation, America’s military will know that their country stands behind them as they fight for our freedom, and as they spread the peace. No enemy or friend can doubt that America has the resources to prevail, and we will.

I want to thank the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for his steadfast and strong leadership of our — of our Pentagon. Mr. Secretary, thank you.

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz for joining us today. I appreciate the other members of the Pentagon team who are here. I appreciate Jim Roche and Les Brownlee representing the Air Force and the Army. General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is with us. I appreciate the Chairman. I want to thank all the military generals who are here, who run their respective — respective branches of the services. Thank you all for coming. Thanks for your leadership.

I appreciate Senator John Warner representing the United States Congress. Senator Warner is a strong leader when it comes to matters of defense. He’s the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. I want thank you for that, sir.

America’s military is fighting in many theaters, yet always for the same cause. We seek to preserve freedom and peace for ourselves and for our friends.

In the last three years, our military men and women have struck a series of decisive blows against the enemy. They have relentlessly attacked the al Qaeda network. They’ve killed or captured many of its leaders. They’ve destroyed its terror camps. We’re disrupting its plans. We’re doing our duty.

We’ve ended regimes in Kabul and Baghdad that supported and harbored terrorists and threatened America. They have helped to launch the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan on the path to lasting democracy and liberty. They have helped friendly nations build the strength and institutions necessary to fight terror. At this hour, our troops are staying on the offensive against al Qaeda. We’re taking the fight to the enemies — those who can’t stand the thought of a free Iraq and free Afghanistan. Our troops are making America safer, and we’re grateful for their sacrifices.

President George W. Bush greets military personnel after signing H.R.4613, The Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building Thursday, Aug. 5, 2004. White House photo by Eric Draper. These great achievements have come at a cost of human life and grief. America is grateful for the families of those who mourn a loved one. We will honor their memory by completing the mission and making the world a more peaceful place. We have made a commitment to the men and women of our armed forces. We will support them. We will provide them fair pay and good treatment. We will continue to ensure they have the tools they need to defeat the enemies of today. We will develop the weapons and systems to meet the threats of tomorrow.

The bill meets these commitments — first, by providing more then $103 billion to the greatest source of American strength — our service people and their families. This appropriation is the fourth of my administration to include a pay raise for our troops. This year’s raise of 3.5 percent brings the total pay raise over the last four years to nearly 21 percent. This money is well earned, well deserved, and well spent.

The bill also fulfills my pledge to eliminate the costs that too many service people have had to pay for off-base housing. It’s a real boost to the quality of life for our military families. The excellence and professionalism of an all-volunteer force has never been higher. America must do all we can to encourage these special Americans to stay in uniform. And that starts with taking care of their families.

Second, this bill meets our commitments by making sure that our armed forces have every tool they need to meet and defeat the threats of our time. This bill provides $25 billion in emergency appropriations to support current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the front lines in the war on terror. This money will buy more armored Humvees, more ammunition, more fuel, more spare parts. It will upgrade our helicopters with the latest equipment, allowing them to fly more safely in the dangerous theaters.

This bill helps America maintain the peace around the world and keep our commitments to our allies. It funds construction of three new state-of-the-art guided missile destroyers to patrol the seas; 42 new F/A-18 fighter aircraft to guard the skies. It provides $4 billion for new C-17 strategic air lifters, which will increase our ability to move forces quickly over long distances. And $200 million will buy more Predator unmanned surveillance aircraft to track and hunt our enemies.

President George W. Bush walks downs the steps of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after signing H.R.4613, The Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 Thursday, Aug. 5, 2004. “The bill meets these commitments — first, by providing more then $103 billion to the greatest source of American strength — our service people and their families,” said the President in his comments. White House photo by Eric Draper. This bill provides $10 billion for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational. This will fulfill a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago. America and our allies face a deadly threat from ballistic missiles armed with the world’s most dangerous weapons. And we will deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people.

Recent history has shown that threats to our shores can emerge from failing states half a world away. By acting early to end a crisis, we can make our world safer. That’s why this bill provides $95 million to help the people of Darfur, in western Sudan. Brutal militias there are causing human suffering on an immense scale. The new funding will provide famine relief, assistance for refugees and other humanitarian aid. Yet not amount of aid can substitute for true and lasting peace. The Government of Sudan must stop the violence of Janjaweed militias, and all parties must respect the cease-fire and allow the free movement of humanitarian workers and supplies.

Third, this bill meets our commitment to America’s Armed Forces by preparing them to meet the threats of tomorrow. Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. We must never stop thinking about how best to defend our country when we all must always be forward-thinking.

In case you missed that let me re-print once more:
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. ”

That’s probably the first time I’ve ever agreed with dubya. I don’t know why I’m so shocked those words actually fell out of his mouth…I just never expected the smirking chimp to be so brutally honest about the harm caused by his administration.

I couldn’t have asked for a better Freudian slip. I hope Kerry uses this quote in his TV ads.

Over the past few years, new ideas and new technologies have increased the precision of our weapons, reduced battlefield casualties, and lessened the toll of war on innocent life. This bill continues that progress by funding the technologies that are changing the way we fight wars in order to keep the peace, technology such as: the Army’s Future Combat System, which will give every soldier precise tactical information in the heat of battle; the Littoral Combat Ship, which will increase the reach of our Navy into hostile shores and waterways; the versatile and cost-effective Joint Strike Fighter; and Wideband Satellite laser communications that will improve the ability of our forces to communicate over great distances.

I appreciate the solid and bipartisan support of this bill. I appreciate both people — people of both parties coming together to support our troops. We’re doing our duty to the people who are out doing their duty to defend us and make the world a more peaceful place. The message is clear: In a time of conflict and challenge, America stands behind our military.

By taking care of our service people in uniform, by addressing the threats of today, by preparing for the threats of a tomorrow, this bill will help make America a safer place. And so I’m pleased to sign the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

Thank you all for coming. (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.)

END 10:07 A.M. EDT

You now cannot say “bum” on the radio. On Seattle’s 100.7 KQBZ The Buzz they were playing a South Park sound byte. The one that goes, “We shall have such a gay time, and when I say gay I mean festive not penetration of the bum.”

So lets all bow before Lord Ashcroft the word Nazi and get out our dictionary of newspeak so that we may cross out our bums.

I agree with part of this, but not all (see below)….

After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver’s license with her face covered this is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn’t he? Read on, please!

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the “politically correct” crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

The above I agree with to a certain extent, but multicultural communities dilute our sovereignty and identity? Here is the definition of sovereignty:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.

We still have the constitution and are still independent from other countries. I don’t see how adding different cultures to the mix diminishes the law and independence of a country, and the mixture of other cultures is what created America’s identity. Just look at what we eat! Pizza (America’s version of Italian food), Hot dogs (America’s version of German food), Ketchup (derived from the Chinese ke-tsiap, a pickled fish sauce), Cheesecake (believed to have originated in ancient Greece), Tacos, Teriyaki…

“In God We Trust” is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

By an Act of Congress, U.S. currency has carried the motto “In God We Trust” only since 1957. In 1955, Congress passed a law requiring that “In God We Trust” appear on all U.S. coins and currency. The first paper currency with the motto appeared in 1957. This was right after the McCarthy era, during the early Cold War, when no congressperson had the balls to stand up and remind people that our government was supposed to be secular so that anyone could practice their own beliefs.

“In God We Trust” did appear occasionally on a few coins, starting with a 2-cent piece in the 1860s, probably in an attempt to put “God” on the side of the north during the Civil War. In 1956, an Act of Congress adopted “In God We Trust” as a national motto. The original motto, “E Pluribus Unum” (”out of many, [come] one,”) celebrating plurality, still appears on the Presidential Seal and on some paper currency, and should be the only motto…notice the original is a godless one?

This country was NOT founded on Christian principles:

U.S. treaty signed by President Adams. In 1797 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli, in which it was declared:
“As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility [sic] of Mussulmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” This treaty was written under Washington’s presidency, and it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.

Our nation was founded as a secular government. There is no mention of any deities in the Constitution.

The First Amendment begins with these words:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .” The two clauses are referred to, respectively, as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

President Thomas Jefferson coined this phrase “wall of separation between church and state” in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802. It has since been widely picked up and invoked in major Supreme Court decisions.

Through the country is runs on a majority rules theory the Bill of Rights was created to protect minority groups. I use the following two examples to show that Christian religions also evoke the first amendment right to freedom of religion not just the non-Christians.

In 1890, bible reading was outlawed from Wisconsin schools. — A Roman Catholic family objected to the exclusive use of the Protestant King James Version of the bible. The court barred all bible reading from Wisconsin public schools. [State ex rel. Weiss vs. District Board, 76 Wisc. 177 (1890)].

The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed student-initiated prayers at high-school football games in 2000. The Texas lawsuit was taken by a Catholic family and a Mormon family who had children who were being harassed by the born-again majority in the public schools.

If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don’t like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every! citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

The phrase “under god” was added in 1954 as a response to the “Red scare”. Congress figured that adding “under god” to the pledge would separate the real Americans from those evil heathen atheist commies. The original pledge was first published on September 8, 1892 in the magazine “Youth’s Companion” with no reference to a deity. I see no reason to add god to a pledge to one’s country, and would prefer going back to the original pledge. Those that wish to add a deity to the pledge to their country may, but a our secular government should keep it out in order to serve all!