The only thing that will keep me drinking is that T-paw was re-elected and I voted for Peter Hutchinson expecting an easy victory for Hatch. Oh well I guess you can’t win ‘em all.

Let’s not forget the rhetoric, it wasn’t that long ago

May 6, 2004

“They’ll kill innocent people to try to shake our will,” Bush said of terrorists. “That’s what they want to do. They’ll never shake the will of the United States. We understand the stakes.”
“Bush: Stay the course on terror war

July 10th, 2003

“We’re making steady progress,” he said. “A free Iraq will mean a peaceful world. And it’s very important for us to stay the course, and we will stay the course.”
U.S. ‘Will Stay the Course’ in Iraq, Bush Says

More Stay the Course Video

John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee, was overheard in an Irish bar on Capitol Hill talking about how satisfying it would be to impeach Bush if Congress went Democrat. He was just having a laugh, his spokeswoman rushed to explain: “Impeachment jokes in Washington are as old as Donald Rumsfeld.”

But then she turned serious: “How are the same Republicans, who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair, going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?”

Times Online

In other sad news, the US continues to hold its own hostages in order to demonstrate to the world what it takes to be strong democracy.

About 490 foreign terrorism suspects are being held at Guantanamo, many for four years and only 10 charged with a crime.

Maybe in an attempt to be more like the US, the new Iraqi government should hire Tom Fox’s captors to teach them how to take hostages, torture people and all in all just be more like the US.

Missouri bill proposes Christianity as official religion

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

http://www.zogby.com/news

Andrew Sullivan remarks:

“It’s absurd, of course. But no more absurd than the empirically baseless claims that kids brought up by gay parents are somehow at a disadvantage.”

(via patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com)

Murtha quotes:

“Get that wounded marine a purple heart or I will give him one of mine…”
“80% of Iraqis want us out of there…”
“We are uniting the enemy against us…”
“There is more terrorism (in Iraq) now than there ever was…”
“I like guys that have never been there criticize us who have been there… I like guys who have five deferments criticize us who have been there… this is a flawed policy.”
“This one young commanding officer from Youngstown, three days before he was supposed to go home, he walked up to this IED and it blew up…”
“We have an obligation to speak for them… what do you think the soldiers are going to say… they are proud of their service… we have an obligation to speak for them… “

After weeks of lobbying and intra-party squabbling, the House of Representatives narrowly approved a five-year, $50bn package of cuts to federal benefits programs, while the Senate backed a $60bn package of tax cuts.

It is a shame the 50 billion in cuts are to programs like Medicaid, food stamps, student loan subsidies, state child-support enforcement programs, and farm support. It is estimated that the House bill would cut $220,000 people off food stamps. I wonder how many of those people live in New Orleans? How quickly we forget the President’s pledge to rebuild New Orleans and put an end to the poverty in that region. Has the OMB even taken into account the President’s Katrina speech? Maybe they are still working on last year’s numbers? Where is the “unprecedented response of an extra 60 billion dollars” asked for by the President going to come from? — (let me guess the poor in New Orleans will have to give up more programs.) Was that all empty rhetoric of a President trying to save face?
My favorite part of this whole House budget proposal is a “concession” to the moderates.

A provision denying Medicaid nursing home benefits to people with home equity of $500,000 or more was modified by raising the equity standard to $750,000 or more.

Are you kidding me. If you have $500,000 in home equity you don’t need Medicaid because you probably are already a doctor with a great health care plan. Seriously… Raised from $500,000 to $750,000 … WTF… How can we give 60 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and nonchalantly cut food stamps for 220,000 of the poorest Americans? You do know what I mean by “tax cuts to the wealthiest,” right? If not… that means lowering the dividend and long term capital gains tax rate from an already amazingly low 20% to 15%. When was the last time YOU paid 15% in income taxes? Could you imagine if they only took 15% out of your paycheck instead of more than 30%. Isn’t it backwards that the people that actually need the money to live are the people that don’t get it? Like I recently read… “Don’t Balance the Budget on the Backs of the Poor.” This “Reverse Robinhood” has to stop.

(Source MSNBC.com)
(Source WashingtonPost.com subscription required)

(Source www.denvergov.org)

(Source saferchoice.org)

A panel of judges in the Florida county of Sarasota has granted a request by a group of over 150 citizens accused of drink-driving to view the source code of the breathalyser that was used to determine their breath alcohol levels.

…
If CMI keeps refusing to subject the application to an independent audit, it is unlikely that a judge can force it to do so. This would render the results of the test inadmissible in court.

(The Judge’s Ruling)
(Source http://www.vnunet.com)

The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign-over 95 percent of all the incidents-has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

(Source The American Conservative)

I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did, and then God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …’ And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.’ And by God I’m gonna do it.

The White House denies the quote. I wonder if the CIA is getting their intelligence from God too?
(Source San Francisco Chronical – “Bush said God told him to invade Iraq”)
(Source BBC – “White House denies Bush God claim”)

Read on to find out that this is exactly what happened in the Hamdan case involving a suspected terrorist Hamdan and the President. The President questioned Judge Roberts about a Supreme Court nomination four days before the verdict was decided. Under normal circumstances an ethical judge would recuse himself. In this case though, Robert’s did the opposite, he stayed on and sided in favor of the President. Impartiality reasonably questioned? … You be the judge.

Republican Senate Rejects Stabenow Proposal for First Responders Communications Funding

Presidential Approval Ipsos PDF

And after all the reassuring that we are more secure and better prepared by the president and public officials, what have they been doing over the past four years? Where is the outrage that we aren’t better prepared? When it takes the 3rd Infantry Division four days to get within 50 miles of Baghdad under fire and in armored vehicals, why does it take the National Guard more than a week to get to a hotspot on our own soil?

This should have been a sweet exposition of just how prepared we are. FEMA, Homeland Security, the National Guard and the president all could have shone. Instead we get ineptness, lack of preparedness, and weakness. I really wish I could say we are “Stronger at Home, Respected in the World” and truly hope “Help is on the way!” — better late than never — maybe in ‘08.

Gas prices are climbing, motorists are fuming and President Bush is at his ranch with a book about the history of salt. According to the White House, one of three books Bush chose to read on his five-week vacation is “Salt: A World History” by Mark Kurlansky, who chronicled the rise and fall of what once was considered the world’s most strategic commodity.

The other two books he reportedly brought to Crawford are “Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar” by Edvard Radzinsky and “The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History” by John M. Barry.(Source La Times)

“Kurlansky said he was surprised to hear that Bush had taken his book to the ranch: ‘My first reaction was, ‘Oh, he reads books?’

“The author said he was a ‘virulent Bush opponent’ who had given speeches denouncing the war in Iraq.

” ‘What I find fascinating, and it’s probably a positive thing about the White House, is they don’t seem to do any research about the writers when they pick the books,’ Kurlansky said.” (Source Washington Post)

When it comes to science, President Bush is of two minds, one of which is wrong.

Concerning the space shuttle program, he defers to the views of experts.

In a conversation with Texas reporters Monday, he said that “the experts at NASA” will determine whether the shuttle should be retired before 2010.

But when it comes to science education, he unfortunately sees no need for experts. Answering a question about evolution vs. intelligent design, he said it was a question for local school districts, but he felt “both sides ought to be properly taught.”

And he added, “so people can understand what the debate is about.”

But among experts, there is no debate worth mentioning. The theory of evolution underpins all modern biology, and like any vibrant science it is constantly being expanded and modified as new lines of evidence appear. Thousands upon thousands of research scientists have contributed to it since Darwin proposed the mechanism of natural selection as an explanation for the relationships among species living and extinct.

Intelligent design, in contrast, is taken seriously by scarcely any scientific experts. It proposes that the natural world is too complex to have been created by entirely natural processes, so there must be a designer of some kind. As to how the designer acts, or how scientists could study those actions, it has no answers. Intelligent design explains nothing and predicts nothing; it isn’t even a theory. It has no place in science classrooms.

The president said that part of education is to be exposed to different schools of thought. Up to a point, yes. But in planning lessons on space exploration, how much time is due to the people who believe – quite sincerely – that the Apollo program and the moon landings were nothing but a hoax?

Source news.cincypost.com

Beneath the surface, though, this is not the easy-going municipality of 1.5 million people I recall. For one thing, I can no longer wander the streets, take a cab, or dine in restaurants for fear of being spotted as a foreigner: Kidnapping, by criminal gangs or terrorists, remains a lucrative business. Instead, for safety’s sake, I’m tied to my hotel, dependent on expensive drivers, unable to go anywhere without Iraqi escort. “You really shouldn’t be here at all,” a British-embassy official warned me.

In that same piece he describes the Iraqis feelings of helplessness and anger. He paints a bleak picture of the infrastructure and rebuilding; electricity three hours on, three hours off, sewage a nightmare, water still bad, and gas lines intolerable. He relays questions about the apparent nonexistence of billions of dollars that are being spent on reconstruction efforts from a British Army translator, “Where is the money going, why is nothing happening? Tell your readers”.

Steven also maintained a blog for his book, In the Red Zone.

Steven Vincent – Wikipedia
NY Times Article

Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm. — Senator Rick “The Frothy Mixture” Santorum

Is Rick standing alone or do others on the right really equate higher education and progressive values with pedophilia and sex abuse? If this is the case, is this some sort of deflection tactic to take the heat off of their educational shortcomings? It seems to me like the old school yard manipulation where one jealous kid says, “transformers are dumb” to the other kid that just got a new transformer.

This article explains how liberal values make great family values.

Wikipedia Entry – John G. Roberts Jr.

John G Roberts is a Bush Campaign Donor

According to the Bush philosophy, take the fight to the terrorists so they don’t attack us here, is this strictly limited to international Islamic terrorists? Does the war on terrorism differentiate between terrorists of different religions?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/07/14/health.chemicals.reut/index.html

So why then did the Senate vote down an amendment to the energy bill that would require better gas mileage for vehicles?

(Source The Auto Channel)
(Source Harper’s Magazine)
(Source 40mpg.org)

THE PRESIDENT: Terry.

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, recently, Amnesty International said you have established “a new gulag” of prisons around the world, beyond the reach of the law and decency. I’d like your reaction to that, and also your assessment of how it came to this, that that is a view not just held by extremists and anti-Americans, but by groups that have allied themselves with the United States government in the past — and what the strategic impact is that in many places of the world, the United States these days, under your leadership, is no longer seen as the good guy.

THE PRESIDENT: I’m aware of the Amnesty International report, and it’s absurd. It’s an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is — promotes freedom around the world. When there’s accusations made about certain actions by our people, they’re fully investigated in a transparent way. It’s just an absurd allegation.

In terms of the detainees, we’ve had thousands of people detained. We’ve investigated every single complaint against the detainees. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of — and the allegations — by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report. It just is. And, you know — yes, sir.

Amnesty International responded to his answer.

USA: Response to President Bush
President Bush again failed to address longstanding concerns regarding US detention policies and practices in the context of the “war on terror”, Amnesty International said in response to his comments today.

At Guantánamo, the US has operated an isolated prison camp in which people are confined arbitrarily, held virtually incommunicado, without charge, trial or access to due process. Not a single Guantánamo detainee has had the legality of their detention reviewed by a court, despite the Supreme Court ruling of last year.

“Guantánamo is only the visible part of the story. Evidence continues to mount that the US operates a network of detention centres where people are held in secret or outside any proper legal framework -– from Afghanistan to Iraq and beyond,” said Amnesty International.

US interrogation and detention policies and practices during the “war on terror”, have deliberately and systematically breached the absolute prohibition of torture and Ill-treatment. Individuals held in US custody have been transferred for interrogation to countries known to practice torture.

“If President Bush and his administration are serious about freedom and human dignity they should recommit to the rule of law and human rights.”

Amnesty International continues to call on the US administration to:

* end all secret and incommunicado detentions;
* grant the International Committee of the Red Cross full access to all detainees including those held in secret locations;
* ensure recourse to the law for all detainees;
* establish a full independent commission of inquiry into all allegations of torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detentions and “disappearances”;
* bring to justice anyone responsible for authorizing or committing human rights violations

With the Downing Street Memo out, there is no reason why the issue shouldn’t be pursued.

What can you do? Sign this letter from the office of John Conyers to the President. It is a small… but a start.

Source Boston Globe

This op-ed piece in the Washington Post really hit home by describing an illogical double standard with the president’s stance. He argues that the logical conclusion from the president’s position would be to outlaw in vitro fertilization. He claims that since fertility clinics create many more embryos than they use, the freezing and destruction of this “life” is the same destruction of “life” in stem cell research. Compelling… but I’m going to err on the side of “life”, I mean cluster of a hundred non-differentiated cells.

And another thing (while I’m ranting). If you disagree with stem cell research then I say the government provides a form with our tax returns that lets us “opt out” of paying for it. The deal is though, if you opt out now, you disqualify yourself in the future from ever receiving any of the benefits or any treatments or knowledge gained from the research. If doctors find a cure to Alzheimer’s, you’re out. If doctors learn how to repair severed a spinal cord, you’re out. But at least you can take comfort in how many embryos you saved.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+) Source

This is a perfect example of “judicial activism” as it would be defined today. Should we change the rules of the Senate, to use the Nuclear Option, to allow the packing of the courts with conservative judges? Or should we uphold the rules of the Senate and stop the tyranny of the majority and protect the rights of the minority? On what side of the argument would you have been in 1954?

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+)

347 U.S. 483

Argued December 9, 1952

Reargued December 8, 1953

Decided May 17, 1954

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS*

Syllabus

Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment — even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors of white and Negro schools may be equal.

(a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education.

(b) The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the full development of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.

(c) Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

(d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal.

(e) The “separate but equal” doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, has no place in the field of public education.

(f) The cases are restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the forms of the decrees.

Opinion

WARREN

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Fergson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.

The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not “equal” and cannot be made “equal,” and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.

Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment’s history with respect to segregated schools is the status of public education at that time. In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.

In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. The doctrine of “separate but equal” did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the “separate but equal” doctrine in the field of public education. In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. In more recent cases, all on the graduate school level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.

In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other “tangible” factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on “those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.” In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: “. . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question — the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term The Attorney General of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.

It is so ordered.

* Together with No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al. , on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953, and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953.

Are you serious? High level Bush officials actually asked for Osama’s head in a box on a stick? Where and what year do we live? This is just disgraceful. Read the transcript below

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7761272/

MR. RUSSERT: On September 1, 2001, you began a 90-day phaseout retiring from the CIA. Then came the horrific day of 8:46 AM, September 11, 2001. All our lives changed. You were asked to stay on at the CIA. On September 13th, you were summoned to the office of Cofer Black, the head of counterterrorism for the CIA. What did he tell you? What was your mission?

MR. SCHROEN: The mission was to–the first part of it was to go in and link up with the Northern Alliance, formerly headed by Ahmed Al-Massoud, and to win their confidence and their agreement to cooperate militarily with us. They were the only armed force on the ground in Afghanistan opposing the Taliban. The second part of it was, once the Taliban were broken, to attack the al-Qaeda organization, find bin Laden and his senior lieutenants and kill them.

MR. RUSSERT: Kill them?

MR. SCHROEN: Kill them.

MR. RUSSERT: Wasn’t it illegal for us to kill foreign leaders?

MR. SCHROEN: I don’t think at that point that the–I think the administration had gotten to the point where bin Laden and his guys were fair game.

MR. RUSSERT: As part of war?

MR. SCHROEN: As part of war.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Black gave you specific instructions on what he wanted you to bring home.

MR. SCHROEN: That’s true. He did ask that once we got bin Laden and killed him, that we send his head back in a cardboard box on dry ice so that he could take it down and show the president.

MR. RUSSERT: Where would you find the dry ice in Afghanistan?

MR. SCHROEN: That’s what I mentioned to him. I said, “Cofer, I think that I can come up with pikes to put the heads of the lieutenants on,” which is the second part of what he wanted done. “Dry ice, we’ll have to improvise.”

Here is what really happened. The United States confused the captured al-Libbi with the actual number three man, a Libyan on the FBI’s most wanted list, al-Liby. Captured al-Libbi doesn’t even show up on the FBI’s most wanted terrorists list.

The best part of the confusion is …. “When The Sunday Times contacted a senior FBI counter-terrorism official for information about the importance of the detained man, he sent material on al-Liby, the wrong man.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1602568,00.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10454/trackback/