Friday, November 30, 2007

Bring U.S. Soldiers Home--Let the Mercenaries Stay and Fight

Anti-Bush VanBring the troops home

Saw this van parked outside of the Hollywood Casino in Bay St. Louis on Thanksgiving Day. Thought it was a great sentiment, of course and it made me think--why don't we just go ahead and bring U.S. soldiers home and let Bush have his war with the "civilian contractors," i.e. Blackwater and other mercenary groups?

Because these guys have loyalty to nothing but the dollar. And killing people, I suppose. And they're getting to do a lot of that, as the Washington Post points out:

BAGHDAD -- Private security companies, funded by billions of dollars in U.S. military and State Department contracts, are fighting insurgents on a widening scale in Iraq, enduring daily attacks, returning fire and taking hundreds of casualties that have been underreported and sometimes concealed, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials and company representatives.

And let's wean these "contractors" of the tit of the U.S. taxpayer. Let Iraq pick up the tab for them. There are so many mercenaries in Iraq now that actual U.S. troops are no longer needed--in fact, mercenaries now outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq. So if Iraq really wants or needs help as pro-war types say they do, then let Iraq pay for the mercenaries if they want to.

So let's bring home the U.S. military--the people who volunteered to serve our country. Neither our country nor Iraq is being served by the presence of U.S. troops there. The only people being served are the neocons and their corporate, defense contractor pals who need U.S. troops there to create an excuse for two things: 1)to take away our civil liberties here at home and 2)to create an excuse for endless war and endless profiteering.

...that torture, indefinite detention, "rendition"--extraordinary or otherwise, military commissions, abridgment of the right to counsel, etc. are un-American and anti-American. Even in the case of supposed "terror suspects."

Bravo to the 150 hooded Cornell activists! They gave John Ashcroft the tiniest, infinitesimal dose of his own poison.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

WAINWRIGHT'S TRIAL POSTPONED UNTIL NEXT YEAR... the request of his lawyer. Here's what I wrote about it today on the Hattiesburg American forum.

Here's what the HA said about YW on 11-10-07:

"Wainwright was arrested in April, just days following the shootings at Virginia Tech, for allegedly posting threats on the popular social networking Web site

Since his arrest, Wainwright has been held in the Lamar County Jail on a $1 million bond.

Wainwright was indicted on charges of cyber-stalking through electronic media in September. He pleaded innocent following his arrest.

Very little information has been released regarding exactly what kinds of threats Wainwright posted on his blog."

So he posted threats on his MySpace page? On his MySpace blog? Are they trying to get him on the Jessica Simpson stuff?

Where have these posts gone? Other articles have Bob Hopkins saying that it was YW's MySpace "correspondence"--MySpace emails?--that was the problem.

"His own correspondence on his MySpace page gave the indication that he was unhappy with his education, that he was a direct threat if he would have carried out an incident to either an individual or a group of individuals," says Chief Bob Hopkins of the university police.

From the same link:

"Hopkins says the suspect's MySpace page discussed the April 20, 1999, massacre at Columbine High School and gave authorities the definite indication Wainwright was planning an attack at Southern Miss."

Before or After VT?

Here's something interesting--Hopkins has always said that YW's offending words were posted BEFORE the Virginia Tech incident, but we know that YW's bulletin quoting the Columbine guys was sent out AFTER the VT shooting and didn't spell out a threat to anyone.

"Authorities say they do not believe the threats were in any way related to the Virginia Tech massacre. The postings evidently existed prior to the horror in Blacksburg."
[same link]

Here's a link to the Student Printz's archive of YW's MySpace bulletins provided by dorkface.

Since none of the HA stories or forum posts from April are still in existence, I can't find anything for sure, but I seem to remember that the bulletins above were sent out post-VT, which makes it curious that Hopkins would say that YW's offending posts existed before VT and then cite a post-VT bulletin as evidence that YW was planning something.

The post-VT nature of the dorkface-posted bulletins seems to be confirmed in this David McRaney editorial:
"Wainwright has told both WDAM and The Hattiesburg American this is all a misunderstanding. He said the things he posted that got him arrested were benign criticisms of the way the Virginia Tech shootings were being reported including references to the Columbine shootings. His descriptions seem to match what is being posted in forums. "

There have been so many conflicting details given since April, it's difficult to keep it all straight....

Saturday, November 24, 2007


My friend left another comment about the Plame case. He points out that Novak said his source was Richard Armitage. Interestingly, Armitage apologized to Plame for revealing her identity to Novak. He also said just this month that it was "foolish" for him to have revealed Plame's identity. Here's how CBS/AP puts it:

"(CBS/AP) Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage says he was foolish to have revealed the identity of a CIA employee.

Armitage's acknowledgment Sunday came in response to comments by Valerie Plame, who said the former Bush administration official had no right to talk to a reporter about where she worked.

A year ago, Armitage publicly apologized to Plame and her husband. The former No. 2 State Department official remains the only principal in the leak to have done so.

At least three one-time administration officials in addition to Armitage discussed Plame's CIA status with reporters. They are former White House political adviser Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney's ex-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer.
Armitage and Rove were the sources for a 2003 newspaper column by conservative commentator Robert Novak that disclosed Plame's CIA employment."

It is true that Armitage was Novak's initial source, but it is also true that Novak called Rove for confirmation of Armitage's info, which Rove provided. Rove, Bush's closest adviser, also revealed info about Plame to Time's Matt Cooper before Novak's story appeared. David Corn sums it up thusly:

Novak neglects to note that Karl Rove was the source he used to confirm the leak he had received from Armitage--and that Rove also leaked classified information on Valerie Wilson to Matt Cooper of Time magazine before the leak appeared in Novak's column. Nor does Novak mention that Scooter Libby leaked information on Valerie Wilson to Judith Miller of The New York Times weeks before Novak entered Armitage's office--and also confirmed Rove's leak to Cooper. (A source close to Rove is quoted in Hubris saying that Rove "probably" learned about Valerie Wilson from Libby.) Like Armitage, Rove and Libby kept silent, even as the White House claimed they were not involved in the leak. Maybe it's time for all leakers to come clean and tell what happened.

And Rove is definitely a White House source, and unlike Novak's description of Armitage as "no partisan gunslinger," Rove is the pre-eminent partisan gunslinger.

Our Impeachable Connection--"...and misdemeanors"

So there's our impeachable connection--Rove, Libby, and Armitage all leaked info about Plame. How Rove beat the rap is a mystery to me, but apparently it had something to do with being ultimately more forthcoming than Libby.

And that's what McClellan's getting at--Rove was in fact one of the leakers that Bush said would be fired, and McClellan was told that Rove wasn't involved. Or McClellan was told to tell us that Rove wasn't involved. So the president, through his spokesman, lied to you and me.

And lying may not be a crime, but it is a "misdemeanor," which is given in the Constitution as an acceptable reason to impeach a president. Here's's 2nd definition for "misdemeanor":

"2. an instance of misbehavior; misdeed."

Let the impeachment begin!

Wednesday, November 21, 2007


A friend of mine left the following comment on my post from yesterday (McClellan Rats Out Bush...):

"In any case, perjury is only a crime if done under oath, so the President could only be accused of lying at best, but no crime. Furthermore, there was no crime committed in the first place since Valiere Plame was not a active field spy when her career was leaked and leaked not just by the White House."

I don't know if the CIA actually has a designation of "active field spy," but they do have the designation of an employee with "non-official cover," or NOC, which is what Plame was--a NOC ("knock"). She was working on WMD issues with respect to Iran:

"The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran."

Plame WAS a covert, "active field spy"

An unclassified summary of Plame's CIA work history was released in May of this year. It explained that she was in fact covert at the time of the leak and that she also conducted CIA/national security business overseas:

"The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

That, good people, is a genuine spy. So to have George Bush and Dick Cheney and their "familiars in the media" (how I miss "The Majority Report") portray the Bush administration as the party of national security is a JOKE. What's even more of a sick, unfunny, and ruinous joke is that they blew the cover of an agent working on issues with Iran and now have decidedd that we have to attack Iran.

So by outing Plame, they killed two birds with one stone--they smeared Wilson for revealing that there was no Iraq/Niger deal for uranium (a claim based on badly forged documents), and they blew the career and cover of his wife, who might have stood between the neocons and a war with Iran.

That's why we should impeach

Either one of those offenses is worthy of impeachment, but they gave us a twofer! Forget perjury--for Bush and Cheney, that's kid stuff--their aphrodisiac is starting wars and then cashing in. Lying may not be a crime, but starting wars of aggression is [just to be perfectly clear--that's what Bush and Cheney did].

Notice those bastards never testify under oath and, as in the case of their appearance before the 9/11 Whitewash Commission, they specifically stipulate that they are not to be sworn. They used the ol' "raise your right hand" trick on Clinton--but Willie wasn't as slick as the oilbirds Bush and Cheney and he fell right into the trap.

McClellan's revelation is big, big news--of course we all knew it all along anyway, but to have confirmation is nice. Now will the Democrats do anything about it? I doubt it, but we shall see...they need to get behind my man Kucinich. And/or my man Ron Paul.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007


Scott McClellan has a book coming out in April 2008. But we have been treated to a very, very juicy tidbit, just in time for a tasty Thanksgiving political discussion with the conservative family members:

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," writes McClellan. "So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."

But his press performances weren't based on the facts, McClellan continues.

"There was one problem. It was not true," he writes. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

Holy articles of impeachment, Batman!! This is big! How can Pelosi continue to spit in Kucinich's face given evidence like this? How can she continue to spit in my face and your face? Or, as put it on the Hattiesburg American forum today:

"There is NO REASON to not impeach Bush and Cheney, and everyone knows it. Bush and Cheney both have record disapproval numbers. There is nothing to be gained politically by protecting them and vice versa. A huge majority of the country and the military wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

What then is the source of the Democrats' inaction on impeachment? Is it:

1. The warrantless wiretapping gave the Bushies some dirt on Pelosi and Reid
2. As Nader pointed out, Congress has been warned that martial law will be enacted if impeachment proceedings begin
3. The Democrats are in on the swindle and stand to profit as much from martial law and endless war as the Republicans

Not that the reason really matters--it's still an awful situation.

Put impeachment on the table!!"

Kucinich/Paul '08! Paul/Kucinich '08!

Monday, November 12, 2007


Yuri Wainwright's trial is scheduled for November 28, 2007. That's over 7 months since he was arrested and held on $1 million bond. He was originally charged with violating the Anti-Free Speech Act of 2003, otherwise known as 97-45-17 of the Mississippi Code, which criminalizes "posting of messages" through any medium "for the purpose" of causing "injury" to "any person."

I have questioned Wainwright's detention from day one, for one big reason--the authorities would never tell us specifically what Wainwright wrote that could be construed as being "for the purpose of causing injury to any person." They did tell us that he was an atheist and that they found guns at his grandmother's house, where he lived. But to this day, the general public has never been told what Wainwright said that was so criminal that he had to be arrested exactly in the middle of the week that began with the Virginia Tech shootings and ended with the anniversary of the Columbine killings and then held on a $1 million bond.

I have never said that Wainwright did not commit a crime. I don't know if he did or didn't. I'm just saying that it strikes me as very odd that the authorities felt no responsibility to let the public know exactly what Wainwright said. After all, in a case that is similar to Wainwright's in many respects--that of Tosin Oduwole--the police quoted from his alleged writings immediately, as I've discussed elsewhere. Oduwole supposedly wrote that there was going to be a horrific act of violence on a college campus if money wasn't deposited in his PayPal account. Unlike Wainwright, Oduwole had also allegedly tried to (or actually did) purchase semiautomatic weapons online and had a gun in his dorm room.

Why wouldn't/won't they tell us?

Why would our public servants not tell us what Wainwright said? After all, if people are going to be thrown in jail because they wrote something, the public has the right to know what words were used--we have the right to know whether our First Amendment freedoms are being protected or not. I have feared from the beginning of this case that Wainwright's treatment suggests that the First Amendment is being trampled--it's the mood of the whole country, it seems.

Somewhere along the way, a charge of cyber-stalking was added to Wainwright's case. The Hattiesburg American has been apparently combining the two offenses in their descriptions of the charges, saying Wainwright is being tried for "cyber-stalking through electronic media." That is of course a redundant charge, as cyber-stalking cannot take place except through electronic media.

Cyber-stalking is a completely different charge--the law specifies that a threat must be issued, the victim must reasonably fear for his safety, and the accused must have had the apparent ability to carry out the threat. In fact, when the authorities were quoted in articles about the Wainwright case, they always seemed to be describing cyber-stalking even though Wainwright was originally charged with violating the "posting of messages" statute, which in the law is obviously separate and distinct from cyber-stalking.

I should point out that the "posting" law (97-45-17)does not mention a "threat." Rather, it forbids the purposeful causing of "injury," without defining what "injury" means for the purposes of the statute.

So I'm not sure what happened along the way. When the Hattiesburg American says Wainwright is accused of "cyber-stalking through electronic media," I can't tell if they're quoting the authorities verbatim or if that's the American's interpretation of what the authorities say.

At any rate, I hope Wainwright gets a fair trial and that the First Amendment rights of Wainwright as well as the public at large are protected.

Here's the text of the Hattiesburg American story, reprinted here without permission (I'll remove it if asked) because their stories are deleted after some indeterminate amount of time:

Court date set in Internet threats case

A University of Southern Mississippi student charged with posting threats on the Internet may finally get his day in the Forrest County Circuit Court.

The court date for Yuri Wainwright, 26, is set for Nov. 28, according to court documents.

Wainwright was arrested in April, just days following the shootings at Virginia Tech, for allegedly posting threats on the popular social networking Web site

Since his arrest, Wainwright has been held in the Lamar County Jail on a $1 million bond.

Wainwright was indicted on charges of cyber-stalking through electronic media in September. He pleaded innocent following his arrest.

Very little information has been released regarding exactly what kinds of threats Wainwright posted on his blog.

Jackson attorney Jim Kitchens is representing Wainwright now, court documents say. He was previously being represented by Hattiesburg attorney Maura McLaughlin.

Kitchens did not return calls seeking comment.

Court officials said the Nov. 28 date does not ensure Wainwright will stand trial then. District Attorney Jon Mark Weathers said Wainwright's case is just one of 12 on the court docket for that day.

If convicted Wainwright could be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison and fined $10,000.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007


With few exceptions, these Democrats are totally fucking worthless. Kucinich tries to bring up his Cheney impeachment measure--again--and Hoyer fights to table it. Meanwhile, the Republicans try to stymie Hoyer and force debate on Kucinich's resolution.

I swear to the Lord can these weak, compromised Democrats like Pelosi and Hoyer not impeach Cheney? And/or Bush? I mean, besides the fact that they're weak and compromised?

Bush and Cheney are war criminals. They are peace criminals. They are criminal criminals. They are liars and profiteers and torturers and murderers. There's simply no way around it. And I don't say that only because they're Republicans--there are plenty of Democratic war criminals, too. I say that because it's true.

Ron Paul Revolution

So Ron Paul just got $4.2 million in 24 hours. I've always said I'd never, ever, as long as I live, vote for a Republican, but I'd make an exception in his case. I don't agree with everything the man says, but he is unequivocal in his opposition to the Iraq war and foreign intervention in general. He's the only candidate I'm aware of that knows and will talk about the scam of the Federal Reserve.

He is real--you could have a beer with him. And learn something.

I just want an antiwar candidate that I can vote for that actually has a chance of winning. I love Dennis Kucinich--even if he did see a UFO. Kucinich's UFO story is a lot less crazy than Rudy Giuliani's 9/11 "heroism" story.

But anyway, Kucinich didn't just raise $4.2 million in 24 hours. I wish he had. Kucinich did try to impeach Cheney. Paul didn't do that. So credit where credit is due--they both have their strengths. But Paul's got the dough-re-mi.

Paul/Kucinich '08

I wonder who Paul would choose as a running mate. What current Republican could he pick that would bring voters to his side but not compromise his positions? If there is such a person, I can't name him.

So why not get Kucinich? The party-line crossing story would be huge. They could be the ultimate antiwar ticket, running for the unity of the country. They don't agree on everything, but does that ever happen? I mean, look at Bush and Cheney. Bush is a homophobe and Cheney's granddaughter is being raised by his lesbian daughter and her life partner. They seem to have made out all right--for a couple of war-mongering demons.

But I digress...Kucinich and Paul have similar positions on a lot of issues. Why not highlight those and the press angle could be this: the guy who raised $4.2 million in one day and the only guy who had the nuts to impeach Cheney are running together, even though they're from different parties.

You couldn't stop the press from talking about that shit, yo! Unless you were their corporate paymasters...

Tuesday, November 06, 2007


The polls in Mississippi close at 7 p.m. The Hattiesburg American ran this headline on their website:

"8:35 p.m.: Barbour wins re-election"

That's some mighty quick vote-counting.


But whatever...there was never any doubt that Barbour would win. Friends of mine complained that Eaves was simply pandering with his whole "bring prayer back into schools" gambit. I saw many forum posts echoing that complaint.

To which I say, yeah, okay. It was pandering. But at least it was pandering to the people, which is the complete opposite of what Barbour did. He pandered to the corporatocracy, constantly espousing what a great thing tort "reform" has been for the state.

So given the choice between a millionaire attorney that panders to the people and a millionaire lobbyist that panders to the corporations, the brilliant people of Mississippi chose the interests of corporations over themselves. Let us never again wonder why Mississippi is last or near it on lists of good things and first or near it on lists of bad things.

Race, Big Fat Haley, and Big Fat Cats (and little skinny, hungry, poor ones)

For fuck's sake, let me give an example of how fucked up things are here. This may sound made up, but I swear it's true. One of my wife's co-worker's has "cut off" her daughter because she's dating a black guy. I should point out that the daughter and her parents are white, of course. Is this frigging 2007 or 1957? Or 1927?

And this same co-worker has proudly announced a total submission to the Republican Party, forsaking all others. Don'tcha think Haley "Keep The Flag, Change The Governor" Barbour-y Pirate knows that? I mean, he knows that there are a lot of people who swear allegiance to the Republican party that don't like black people. Or at least don't like interracial couples--same diff.

So it's really easy for Whaley and others like him to lead people to their own destruction economically by doing some subtle (or not-so-subtle) race-baiting, i.e., "keep the flag, change the governor." That was a slogan from the 2003 election, but no matter--no one's forgotten it, especially not the people who support such a statement.

So Barbour can push tort deform on the state, stripping average people of their right to sue for damages. He can kick people off Medicaid. He can refuse to raise the tax on cigarettes despite overwhelming support for such a measure. And so forth and so on, ad astra, ad infinitum.

All because of a bunch of creeps who don't like black people.

Well what can you say, really, except that unfortunately it has been ever thus. Oh, and Nazi punks--FUCK OFF!