The Hippy is not missing...

He just had one heinous freaking Hard Drive crash. More later.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

The Hippy is not missing...

He just had one heinous freaking Hard Drive crash. More later.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

It's DVD Tuesday!!!

Today, I picked up I Heart Huckabees!

I've been wanting to see this movie for quite a while. You see, here in Jeezus Land, sometimes it's hard to find a theater playing films in which stuff doesn't blow up.

Even more intriguing is the review of this movie from the New York Times that I read for the first time today. (registration required)

The high-wire comedy "I ♥ Huckabees" captures liberal-left despair with astonishingly good humor: it's "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the screwball set. Chockablock with strange bedfellows — Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin play a hot-and-heavy married couple, Jason Schwartzman gets his groove on with Isabelle Huppert — the film is a snort-out-loud-funny master class of controlled chaos. In this topsy-turvy world, where Yes is the new corporate No and businesses sponsor environmental causes while bulldozing over Ranger Rick, a pair of existentialist detectives sift through clients' trash to solve the riddle of their malaise. Like the film's director, David O. Russell, they gladly risk foolishness to plunge into the muck of human existence.

Here's the deal folks. I know a lot about politics and possibly more about movies, but, at least for now, I don't know what "'Fahrenheit 9/11' for the screwball set" even means.

Perhaps after I watch it tonight, I will be able to fill you in further.

Until then, I have a DVR'ed episode of "House, M.D." to watch, then Huckabees.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

P.S.

I am working on a piece that will lay out the case that the war in Iraq is simply the most elaborate coup attempt in human history.

Keep your eyes peeled.

It's DVD Tuesday!!!

Today, I picked up I Heart Huckabees!

I've been wanting to see this movie for quite a while. You see, here in Jeezus Land, sometimes it's hard to find a theater playing films in which stuff doesn't blow up.

Even more intriguing is the review of this movie from the New York Times that I read for the first time today. (registration required)

The high-wire comedy "I ♥ Huckabees" captures liberal-left despair with astonishingly good humor: it's "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the screwball set. Chockablock with strange bedfellows — Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin play a hot-and-heavy married couple, Jason Schwartzman gets his groove on with Isabelle Huppert — the film is a snort-out-loud-funny master class of controlled chaos. In this topsy-turvy world, where Yes is the new corporate No and businesses sponsor environmental causes while bulldozing over Ranger Rick, a pair of existentialist detectives sift through clients' trash to solve the riddle of their malaise. Like the film's director, David O. Russell, they gladly risk foolishness to plunge into the muck of human existence.

Here's the deal folks. I know a lot about politics and possibly more about movies, but, at least for now, I don't know what "'Fahrenheit 9/11' for the screwball set" even means.

Perhaps after I watch it tonight, I will be able to fill you in further.

Until then, I have a DVR'ed episode of "House, M.D." to watch, then Huckabees.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

P.S.

I am working on a piece that will lay out the case that the war in Iraq is simply the most elaborate coup attempt in human history.

Keep your eyes peeled.

Project for the New American Century...

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is no less than a group of people who constitute the architects of the Neo-Conservative war machine.

Take a look at this list of names.


Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

That is on impressive list of Neo-Cons, isn't it? Well, as it turns out, they were all signatories in a letter to President William Jefferson Clinton, dated January 26, 1998. Take a gander and see if you recognize any familiar themes.

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

(Emphasis added)

So, here we have our favorite group of warmongers in January of 1998 telling President Clinton that must better attack Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein or quite simply he is weak.

These men were trying to influence foreign policy, in essence, by calling the President of the United States a pussy.

The irony lies in the fact that the sanctions were working. We destroyed Hussein' weapons stockpiles and he abandoned the programs.

Clinton didn't drink the Kool-Aid. Bush did.

In June 2003, John W. Dean compiled a list of the statements President Bush had made regarding the inevitable Iraq war.

I would like to share them.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002


"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address October 5, 2002


"The Iraqi regime . . . Possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002


"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003



"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

`

This of course was before we began playing musical chairs of justification. It's to get the weapons. It's to liberate the people. It's to end torture. (The irony is thick.)

Also, remember that some reasonable people were asking, "Why this? Why now?"

We continued to get the refrain, "September 11th changed everything." Well, apparently it didn't. The members of PNAC had exactly the same goals before and after September 11th. They used that horrible tragedy to push an forward an agenda against Iraq that was well developed and waiting.

We know now that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked the within hours of the attacks how we could use this to get Saddam Hussein. Richard Clark, who had been pushing for a senior staff level meeting on the threat posed by the Al-Qaeda network for months, told Donald Rumsfeld that Al-Qaeda was responsible and the targets were in Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld so famously replied, "There are no good targets in Afghanistan. Let's bomb Iraq."

September 11th changed everything indeed.

So, were do they take us from here? Let's look at their Statement of Principles, and see what we can divine from this information.

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.(editorial note: I almost choked when I read that last sentence. -The Hippy) But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; (editorial note: Unless they disagree with us like those cheese eating French surrender monkeys, right? Side note: I have no problem with the French. As a matter of fact, I give them full credit for recognizing this situation for what it was at the time. -The Hippy)


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Well, they failed. Our military is in shambles. We cannot sustain our ranks because no one wants to enlist in the armed forces anymore. We only continue to function through the use of backdoor draft tactics like stop loss orders.

We have lost an enormous amount of respect around the world.

We do not have the capability to deal with real problems in the world. Genocide in Sudan anyone? Oh that's right, it's not Genocide!

From a February 1, 2005 AP story:

NEW YORK -- A U.N. commission concluded that the Sudanese government and militias carried out mass killings and probably war crimes in the Darfur region, but stopped short of calling the violence genocide, according to a report released Monday.

The panel recommended that the International Criminal Court investigate evidence of widespread abuses including torture, rape, killings of civilians and pillaging.

The United Nations has called Darfur the world's worst humanitarian crisis, saying the conflict there has claimed 70,000 lives since March.

While the commission was clearly reluctant to pronounce a verdict on the violence, it said many of the worst attacks ''may amount to crimes against humanity.''

AP

You see, if it's genocide, then we are required to act. Where are the President and all of his PNAC neo-con friends now? Where is the call for immediate actions to overthrow the dictatorship of Sudan and bring democracy and joy and elections and Pizza for everybody?

Oh, that wasn't the plan all along. Why is it that this PNAC crew and the Administration want to bring peace and democracy to the entire middle east, but they don't seem to care about Africans? Why is a Sudanese worth less than an Iraqi life?

Under the guidance of the brilliant minds from PNAC, we invaded a country on completely false pretenses. We don't seem to be interested in intervening anywhere else in the world. What is it about Iraq?

Oh, that's right. Every conservative I know insists that it has nothing to do with oil.

There is a REAL problem occurring in a little African country sandwiched between Ethiopia and Chad. I guess freedom and democracy isn't for the whole world, is it guys?

It's funny too. If you go to PNAC's homepage, you can see very quickly where their priorities lie.

Defense and National Security

NATO/Europe

Iraq/Middle East

East Asia

Balkans/Caucasus

Oh, and one more as an afterthought, Global Issues.

I do have to give credit where credit is due to Bill Kristol. He did actually write about Dafur and it is on the website, but you're just not being heard are you, Bill? Perhaps if Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bill Bennett were saying something, then perhaps this would be on the President's radar. It would work its way into the echo chamber.

Where is the right's media machine on the subject? We stood by and allowed a crime against humanity to happen, all the while letting our soldiers die in Iraq for a lie.

PNAC is a group bent on pushing the ideal of American superiority on the world.

The problem with such an ideal is simple. If America is the greatest country on the face of the earth, and I believe it is, then the world should not need convincing.
The brilliant minds at PNAC doesn't seem to grasp this.

America is the greatest nation on earth, but by God, we sure haven't been acting like it.

Would you like some freedom fries with your genocide?

-The Oklahoma Hippy
PBU8

Project for the New American Century...

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is no less than a group of people who constitute the architects of the Neo-Conservative war machine.

Take a look at this list of names.


Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

That is on impressive list of Neo-Cons, isn't it? Well, as it turns out, they were all signatories in a letter to President William Jefferson Clinton, dated January 26, 1998. Take a gander and see if you recognize any familiar themes.

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

(Emphasis added)

So, here we have our favorite group of warmongers in January of 1998 telling President Clinton that must better attack Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein or quite simply he is weak.

These men were trying to influence foreign policy, in essence, by calling the President of the United States a pussy.

The irony lies in the fact that the sanctions were working. We destroyed Hussein' weapons stockpiles and he abandoned the programs.

Clinton didn't drink the Kool-Aid. Bush did.

In June 2003, John W. Dean compiled a list of the statements President Bush had made regarding the inevitable Iraq war.

I would like to share them.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002


"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address October 5, 2002


"The Iraqi regime . . . Possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002


"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003



"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

`

This of course was before we began playing musical chairs of justification. It's to get the weapons. It's to liberate the people. It's to end torture. (The irony is thick.)

Also, remember that some reasonable people were asking, "Why this? Why now?"

We continued to get the refrain, "September 11th changed everything." Well, apparently it didn't. The members of PNAC had exactly the same goals before and after September 11th. They used that horrible tragedy to push an forward an agenda against Iraq that was well developed and waiting.

We know now that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked the within hours of the attacks how we could use this to get Saddam Hussein. Richard Clark, who had been pushing for a senior staff level meeting on the threat posed by the Al-Qaeda network for months, told Donald Rumsfeld that Al-Qaeda was responsible and the targets were in Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld so famously replied, "There are no good targets in Afghanistan. Let's bomb Iraq."

September 11th changed everything indeed.

So, were do they take us from here? Let's look at their Statement of Principles, and see what we can divine from this information.

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.(editorial note: I almost choked when I read that last sentence. -The Hippy) But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; (editorial note: Unless they disagree with us like those cheese eating French surrender monkeys, right? Side note: I have no problem with the French. As a matter of fact, I give them full credit for recognizing this situation for what it was at the time. -The Hippy)


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Well, they failed. Our military is in shambles. We cannot sustain our ranks because no one wants to enlist in the armed forces anymore. We only continue to function through the use of backdoor draft tactics like stop loss orders.

We have lost an enormous amount of respect around the world.

We do not have the capability to deal with real problems in the world. Genocide in Sudan anyone? Oh that's right, it's not Genocide!

From a February 1, 2005 AP story:

NEW YORK -- A U.N. commission concluded that the Sudanese government and militias carried out mass killings and probably war crimes in the Darfur region, but stopped short of calling the violence genocide, according to a report released Monday.

The panel recommended that the International Criminal Court investigate evidence of widespread abuses including torture, rape, killings of civilians and pillaging.

The United Nations has called Darfur the world's worst humanitarian crisis, saying the conflict there has claimed 70,000 lives since March.

While the commission was clearly reluctant to pronounce a verdict on the violence, it said many of the worst attacks ''may amount to crimes against humanity.''

AP

You see, if it's genocide, then we are required to act. Where are the President and all of his PNAC neo-con friends now? Where is the call for immediate actions to overthrow the dictatorship of Sudan and bring democracy and joy and elections and Pizza for everybody?

Oh, that wasn't the plan all along. Why is it that this PNAC crew and the Administration want to bring peace and democracy to the entire middle east, but they don't seem to care about Africans? Why is a Sudanese worth less than an Iraqi life?

Under the guidance of the brilliant minds from PNAC, we invaded a country on completely false pretenses. We don't seem to be interested in intervening anywhere else in the world. What is it about Iraq?

Oh, that's right. Every conservative I know insists that it has nothing to do with oil.

There is a REAL problem occurring in a little African country sandwiched between Ethiopia and Chad. I guess freedom and democracy isn't for the whole world, is it guys?

It's funny too. If you go to PNAC's homepage, you can see very quickly where their priorities lie.

Defense and National Security

NATO/Europe

Iraq/Middle East

East Asia

Balkans/Caucasus

Oh, and one more as an afterthought, Global Issues.

I do have to give credit where credit is due to Bill Kristol. He did actually write about Dafur and it is on the website, but you're just not being heard are you, Bill? Perhaps if Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bill Bennett were saying something, then perhaps this would be on the President's radar. It would work its way into the echo chamber.

Where is the right's media machine on the subject? We stood by and allowed a crime against humanity to happen, all the while letting our soldiers die in Iraq for a lie.

PNAC is a group bent on pushing the ideal of American superiority on the world.

The problem with such an ideal is simple. If America is the greatest country on the face of the earth, and I believe it is, then the world should not need convincing.
The brilliant minds at PNAC doesn't seem to grasp this.

America is the greatest nation on earth, but by God, we sure haven't been acting like it.

Would you like some freedom fries with your genocide?

-The Oklahoma Hippy
PBU8

Here's that transcript that I promised...

COOPER: For the past two years, a man known as Jeff Gannon regularly showed up at the White House. He got a daily press pass and worked as a reporter. No one paid much attention to him, until a few weeks ago when he asked the president a question during a White House press conference. Since then, his past has been laid bare, he's resigned from his job, and more questions continue to be raised about how and why he got into the White House in the first place. Details now from Howard Kurtz of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, RELIABLE SOURCES (voice-over): In a White House press corps filled with well known faces, no one paid much attention to this man. Jeff Gannon worked for two Web sites, Talon News and GOPUSA, owned by a Texas Republican activist. He was a self- described conservative reporter who generally asked friendly questions of spokesman Scott McClellan.

And when President Bush called on him last month, Gannon asked an inaccurate question with this unflattering description of Senate Democrats.

JEFF GANNON, FORMER TALON NEWS REPORTER: How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

KURTZ: How did he get White House press credentials? Gannon says he didn't have a permanent pass, which requires a full FBI background check, but was admitted day by day, by giving the Secret Service his real name.
Was he a Bush administration plant? He says his questions were his own.

Was his writing anti-gay? He denies that. But the questions keep mounting. Did White House officials know of his salacious activities? Did they give him special access to information? How could he call himself a journalist?

Gannon has become a symbol for the president's critics, and for the bloggers who have shown once again they can take people down with warp speed.

Howard Kurtz, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: I spoke with Jeff Gannon earlier this evening. I started by asking him why he doesn't use his real name?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GANNON: I use a pseudonym, because my real name is very difficult to pronounce, to remember and to spell. And many people who have been talking about me on television have yet to pronounce it correctly.

COOPER: But I mean, your real name is James and you used the pseudonym Jeff.

GANNON: Yes.

COOPER: How is James so much harder than Jeff?

GANNON: No, no, I meant my last name.

COOPER: Well, your real last name is Guckert, and the pseudonym you used is Gannon.

GANNON: Yes. It's easier to pronounce, to remember and to spell.
COOPER: But when you would go into the White House to get a pass for a briefing, you would use the name James Guckert.

GANNON: Yes, because that's the name on my driver's license.

COOPER: And then -- but then you would switch to Jeff Gannon to ask questions?

GANNON: Because that is the name that I do my reporting under. It's not uncommon for journalists, authors, actors, to have pseudonyms.

COOPER: There are those who have said that the reason perhaps you are using a different name is that there is stuff from your past that you did not want people to know about or find out about.

GANNON: How I'll address that is that I have made mistakes in my past. And these are all of a very personal and private nature that have been -- that have been all brought to the surface by people who disagreed with the question I asked at the presidential press conference several weeks ago. And is -- the effect of this has been that we seem to have established a new standard for journalists in this country, where if someone disagrees with you, then your personal life, your private life, and anything you have ever done in the past is going to be brought up for public inspection.

This was his opportunity to flat out deny any misinformation about his past. He did no such thing.

COOPER: What your critics say, though, is that while a lot of this may be politically motivated, that liberal bloggers who didn't like the question you ask or don't like you in general are targeting you and revealing things about your personal life, that there are legitimate questions to ask. And in fact, they say that things in your personal life in fact just point to, A, a certain level of hypocrisy on your own part, but also serious questions about the White House vetting process.

GANNON: Well, I can't speak to the White House vetting process. All I can say is that they received all of the information that was asked for, that they ask every journalist for who applies for a daily pass into the White House. I suppose that they don't -- they aren't interested in reporters' sexual history either.

COOPER: Let me give you a chance just to respond to what you want to respond to. You had previously stated that you had registered a number of pornographic Web sites for a private client. That's what you had said publicly. You said the sites were never activated. A man now has talked to "The Washington Post," who said that you had essentially paid him to create some Web sites for an escort service, and you are yourself offering yourself as an escort.

GANNON: Well, like I said, there's a lot of things being said about me out there. A lot of things that have nothing to do with the reporting I have done for the last two years.

COOPER: Your critics bring up your past, that whether or not you did work as an escort as going to your credibility, that you know, should somebody who perhaps was working as an escort was getting access to the White House and being passed along through the Secret Service. Was your employer aware of your past activities?

GANNON: My employer was never at any time aware of anything in my past beyond the writings I did, because, frankly, it isn't relevant to the job I was asked to do, which was to be a reporter.

At this point, I can come to no other conclusion than he actually was a male escort.

COOPER: Was anyone at the White House aware of your private activities?

GANNON: I would say that -- I would say no, absolutely, categorically no.

COOPER: There are many questions that have been raised about whether or not -- people raising the specter that you are somehow a White House plant. Are you a White House plant? Were you (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

GANNON: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, how I came to be at the White House is I asked to attend a briefing. I asked the White House press office. They gave me a daily pass to get in.

COOPER: When was that?

GANNON: I don't recall, but it was -- I think somewhere in the neighborhood of two years ago.
COOPER: Because in -- was that for Talon News?

GANNON: At the time, it was called something else, but it -- the name was changed to Talon News shortly thereafter.

COOPER: What was it called at the time?

GANNON: It was called GOPUSA.

COOPER: So -- and that's owned by a Republican activist, Bobby Eberle?

GANNON: It's owned by Bobby Eberle.

Who cannot remember when they started working at the White House? Why is he being so vague? As I said before, I'd bet my life he's covering for someone, or several people, but I'm not really sure he's comfortable with doing so. If any of you saw the show, you know what I'm talking about.

COOPER: The first record we have now of you actually being at a White House press briefing was on February 28th, 2003, as you said, before Talon News even existed. So why were you given a White House pass?

GANNON: I was given a White House -- well, you will have to ask the White House that. But I asked to attend the White House briefing because I was -- you know, because I wanted to report on the activities there.

COOPER: But GOPUSA is not a news organization.

GANNON: Well, we were -- we were -- we had established a news division, and it was later renamed Talon News.

COOPER: Because this is news to just about everybody. You know, Talon News wasn't registered I think until, well, March 29th of 2003. I think the first articles didn't appear until April 1st. So I guess the questions that are being raised why were you at -- allowed to go to a White House briefing if you are working for GOPUSA, which is a clearly partisan organization?

GANNON: There are many, many organizations, many people that are allowed to attend the White House briefings. I don't know the criteria they use.

COOPER: But you weren't even publishing anything. You weren't reporting anything.

GANNON: Well, actually, I was at the time.

COOPER: When was the first article you ever published?

GANNON: Well, you're -- I don't know that, because I'm here in your studio here. And I don't know the answer to specific dates. All I can tell you is that -- and frankly, all these questions about Talon News and GOPUSA, you need to ask them about that, because I don't represent them any longer.

COOPER: Yeah, we've asked them. They refuse to talk about it.

GANNON: Well, I mean, they would be the ultimate authority on that.

COOPER: This liberal group, Media Matters, which I'm sure you know well about. They have been very critical about you, really looked into this probably closer than just about anybody. They say that essentially, you are not a real reporter. And it's not even a question of being an advocate, that you have directly lifted large segments of your reports directly from White House press releases.

GANNON: All my stories were usually titled "White House Says," "President Bush Wants," and I relied on transcripts from the briefings, I relied on press releases that were sent to the press for the purpose of accurately portraying what the White House believed or wanted. COOPER: But using the term "reporting" implies some sort of vetting, some sort of research, some sort of -- I mean, that's called faxing or Xeroxing, if you are just lifting transcripts and putting them into an article.

GANNON: If I am communicating to my readers exactly what the White House believes on any certain issue, that's reporting to them an unvarnished, unfiltered version of what they believe.

Did he really just say that? That's not what a reporter does. That's what the White House communications office does. Damn, what a moron.

COOPER: Did you receive information from the White House that others didn't get?

GANNON: Absolutely not.

COOPER: So there was an article in which you interviewed Ambassador Joe Wilson, and you implied that you had seen a CIA classified document in which Valerie Plame...

GANNON: I didn't do that at all. I didn't do that at all. If you read the question, and I provided -- my article was actually a transcript of my conversation with Ambassador Wilson -- I made reference to a memo. And this...

COOPER: How did you know about that memo?

GANNON: Well, this memo was referred to in a "Wall Street Journal" article a week earlier.

COOPER: So that wasn't based on any information that you had been given by the White House?

GANNON: I was given no special information by the White House or by anybody else, for that matter.

COOPER: You have been very clear that you believe this is politically motivated. And I think just about everyone probably agrees with that, that you asked that question, it was a softball, and liberal bloggers went after you to find out what they could in the public domain about you. But isn't that -- and you say that's unfair. Isn't that -- aren't those the same techniques that you yourself used as a reporter that sort of -- to publish innuendo, to publish advocacy-driven, politically motivated reports?

GANNON: Well, I don't see it that way. But what was -- what's been done to me is far in excess of what has ever been done to any other journalist that I could remember. My life has been turned inside out and upside down. And, again, it makes us all wonder that if someone disagrees with you, that is now your personal life fair game? And I'm hoping that fair-minded people will stand up and say that what's been done to me is wrong, and that -- that people's personal lives have no impact on their ability to be a journalist, you know. Why should my past prevent me from having a future?
COOPER: Appreciate you being with us. Jeff Gannon, thanks very much.

GANNON: Thanks so much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: That was Jeff Gannon, about an hour and a half ago.

In my gut, I feel that there is something much larger going on than this one dumbass could possibly be responsible for. Sorry to those of you on the right who thought this was a non story... As Drudge says, "Developing...>

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Here's that transcript that I promised...

COOPER: For the past two years, a man known as Jeff Gannon regularly showed up at the White House. He got a daily press pass and worked as a reporter. No one paid much attention to him, until a few weeks ago when he asked the president a question during a White House press conference. Since then, his past has been laid bare, he's resigned from his job, and more questions continue to be raised about how and why he got into the White House in the first place. Details now from Howard Kurtz of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, RELIABLE SOURCES (voice-over): In a White House press corps filled with well known faces, no one paid much attention to this man. Jeff Gannon worked for two Web sites, Talon News and GOPUSA, owned by a Texas Republican activist. He was a self- described conservative reporter who generally asked friendly questions of spokesman Scott McClellan.

And when President Bush called on him last month, Gannon asked an inaccurate question with this unflattering description of Senate Democrats.

JEFF GANNON, FORMER TALON NEWS REPORTER: How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

KURTZ: How did he get White House press credentials? Gannon says he didn't have a permanent pass, which requires a full FBI background check, but was admitted day by day, by giving the Secret Service his real name.
Was he a Bush administration plant? He says his questions were his own.

Was his writing anti-gay? He denies that. But the questions keep mounting. Did White House officials know of his salacious activities? Did they give him special access to information? How could he call himself a journalist?

Gannon has become a symbol for the president's critics, and for the bloggers who have shown once again they can take people down with warp speed.

Howard Kurtz, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: I spoke with Jeff Gannon earlier this evening. I started by asking him why he doesn't use his real name?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GANNON: I use a pseudonym, because my real name is very difficult to pronounce, to remember and to spell. And many people who have been talking about me on television have yet to pronounce it correctly.

COOPER: But I mean, your real name is James and you used the pseudonym Jeff.

GANNON: Yes.

COOPER: How is James so much harder than Jeff?

GANNON: No, no, I meant my last name.

COOPER: Well, your real last name is Guckert, and the pseudonym you used is Gannon.

GANNON: Yes. It's easier to pronounce, to remember and to spell.
COOPER: But when you would go into the White House to get a pass for a briefing, you would use the name James Guckert.

GANNON: Yes, because that's the name on my driver's license.

COOPER: And then -- but then you would switch to Jeff Gannon to ask questions?

GANNON: Because that is the name that I do my reporting under. It's not uncommon for journalists, authors, actors, to have pseudonyms.

COOPER: There are those who have said that the reason perhaps you are using a different name is that there is stuff from your past that you did not want people to know about or find out about.

GANNON: How I'll address that is that I have made mistakes in my past. And these are all of a very personal and private nature that have been -- that have been all brought to the surface by people who disagreed with the question I asked at the presidential press conference several weeks ago. And is -- the effect of this has been that we seem to have established a new standard for journalists in this country, where if someone disagrees with you, then your personal life, your private life, and anything you have ever done in the past is going to be brought up for public inspection.

This was his opportunity to flat out deny any misinformation about his past. He did no such thing.

COOPER: What your critics say, though, is that while a lot of this may be politically motivated, that liberal bloggers who didn't like the question you ask or don't like you in general are targeting you and revealing things about your personal life, that there are legitimate questions to ask. And in fact, they say that things in your personal life in fact just point to, A, a certain level of hypocrisy on your own part, but also serious questions about the White House vetting process.

GANNON: Well, I can't speak to the White House vetting process. All I can say is that they received all of the information that was asked for, that they ask every journalist for who applies for a daily pass into the White House. I suppose that they don't -- they aren't interested in reporters' sexual history either.

COOPER: Let me give you a chance just to respond to what you want to respond to. You had previously stated that you had registered a number of pornographic Web sites for a private client. That's what you had said publicly. You said the sites were never activated. A man now has talked to "The Washington Post," who said that you had essentially paid him to create some Web sites for an escort service, and you are yourself offering yourself as an escort.

GANNON: Well, like I said, there's a lot of things being said about me out there. A lot of things that have nothing to do with the reporting I have done for the last two years.

COOPER: Your critics bring up your past, that whether or not you did work as an escort as going to your credibility, that you know, should somebody who perhaps was working as an escort was getting access to the White House and being passed along through the Secret Service. Was your employer aware of your past activities?

GANNON: My employer was never at any time aware of anything in my past beyond the writings I did, because, frankly, it isn't relevant to the job I was asked to do, which was to be a reporter.

At this point, I can come to no other conclusion than he actually was a male escort.

COOPER: Was anyone at the White House aware of your private activities?

GANNON: I would say that -- I would say no, absolutely, categorically no.

COOPER: There are many questions that have been raised about whether or not -- people raising the specter that you are somehow a White House plant. Are you a White House plant? Were you (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

GANNON: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, how I came to be at the White House is I asked to attend a briefing. I asked the White House press office. They gave me a daily pass to get in.

COOPER: When was that?

GANNON: I don't recall, but it was -- I think somewhere in the neighborhood of two years ago.
COOPER: Because in -- was that for Talon News?

GANNON: At the time, it was called something else, but it -- the name was changed to Talon News shortly thereafter.

COOPER: What was it called at the time?

GANNON: It was called GOPUSA.

COOPER: So -- and that's owned by a Republican activist, Bobby Eberle?

GANNON: It's owned by Bobby Eberle.

Who cannot remember when they started working at the White House? Why is he being so vague? As I said before, I'd bet my life he's covering for someone, or several people, but I'm not really sure he's comfortable with doing so. If any of you saw the show, you know what I'm talking about.

COOPER: The first record we have now of you actually being at a White House press briefing was on February 28th, 2003, as you said, before Talon News even existed. So why were you given a White House pass?

GANNON: I was given a White House -- well, you will have to ask the White House that. But I asked to attend the White House briefing because I was -- you know, because I wanted to report on the activities there.

COOPER: But GOPUSA is not a news organization.

GANNON: Well, we were -- we were -- we had established a news division, and it was later renamed Talon News.

COOPER: Because this is news to just about everybody. You know, Talon News wasn't registered I think until, well, March 29th of 2003. I think the first articles didn't appear until April 1st. So I guess the questions that are being raised why were you at -- allowed to go to a White House briefing if you are working for GOPUSA, which is a clearly partisan organization?

GANNON: There are many, many organizations, many people that are allowed to attend the White House briefings. I don't know the criteria they use.

COOPER: But you weren't even publishing anything. You weren't reporting anything.

GANNON: Well, actually, I was at the time.

COOPER: When was the first article you ever published?

GANNON: Well, you're -- I don't know that, because I'm here in your studio here. And I don't know the answer to specific dates. All I can tell you is that -- and frankly, all these questions about Talon News and GOPUSA, you need to ask them about that, because I don't represent them any longer.

COOPER: Yeah, we've asked them. They refuse to talk about it.

GANNON: Well, I mean, they would be the ultimate authority on that.

COOPER: This liberal group, Media Matters, which I'm sure you know well about. They have been very critical about you, really looked into this probably closer than just about anybody. They say that essentially, you are not a real reporter. And it's not even a question of being an advocate, that you have directly lifted large segments of your reports directly from White House press releases.

GANNON: All my stories were usually titled "White House Says," "President Bush Wants," and I relied on transcripts from the briefings, I relied on press releases that were sent to the press for the purpose of accurately portraying what the White House believed or wanted. COOPER: But using the term "reporting" implies some sort of vetting, some sort of research, some sort of -- I mean, that's called faxing or Xeroxing, if you are just lifting transcripts and putting them into an article.

GANNON: If I am communicating to my readers exactly what the White House believes on any certain issue, that's reporting to them an unvarnished, unfiltered version of what they believe.

Did he really just say that? That's not what a reporter does. That's what the White House communications office does. Damn, what a moron.

COOPER: Did you receive information from the White House that others didn't get?

GANNON: Absolutely not.

COOPER: So there was an article in which you interviewed Ambassador Joe Wilson, and you implied that you had seen a CIA classified document in which Valerie Plame...

GANNON: I didn't do that at all. I didn't do that at all. If you read the question, and I provided -- my article was actually a transcript of my conversation with Ambassador Wilson -- I made reference to a memo. And this...

COOPER: How did you know about that memo?

GANNON: Well, this memo was referred to in a "Wall Street Journal" article a week earlier.

COOPER: So that wasn't based on any information that you had been given by the White House?

GANNON: I was given no special information by the White House or by anybody else, for that matter.

COOPER: You have been very clear that you believe this is politically motivated. And I think just about everyone probably agrees with that, that you asked that question, it was a softball, and liberal bloggers went after you to find out what they could in the public domain about you. But isn't that -- and you say that's unfair. Isn't that -- aren't those the same techniques that you yourself used as a reporter that sort of -- to publish innuendo, to publish advocacy-driven, politically motivated reports?

GANNON: Well, I don't see it that way. But what was -- what's been done to me is far in excess of what has ever been done to any other journalist that I could remember. My life has been turned inside out and upside down. And, again, it makes us all wonder that if someone disagrees with you, that is now your personal life fair game? And I'm hoping that fair-minded people will stand up and say that what's been done to me is wrong, and that -- that people's personal lives have no impact on their ability to be a journalist, you know. Why should my past prevent me from having a future?
COOPER: Appreciate you being with us. Jeff Gannon, thanks very much.

GANNON: Thanks so much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: That was Jeff Gannon, about an hour and a half ago.

In my gut, I feel that there is something much larger going on than this one dumbass could possibly be responsible for. Sorry to those of you on the right who thought this was a non story... As Drudge says, "Developing...>

-The Oklahoma Hippy

The Definition of Fascism...

How is Fascism defined?

fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ] or Fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ]


noun

dictatorial movement: any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism

That sounds about right.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

The Definition of Fascism...

How is Fascism defined?

fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ] or Fas·cism [ fá shìzzəm ]


noun

dictatorial movement: any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism

That sounds about right.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Being eaten alive by Anderson Cooper...

"Jeff Gannon" is being fileted by Anderson Cooper. He doesn't have answers to basic questions. As soon as a transcript is available, I will post it here.

He's clearly covering for someone. Otherwise he would be able to answer a question as simple as, "when was the first time you were published as a journalist?"

"Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make your personal life fair game... Why should my past prevent me from having a future?"

Wow. Well, that's certainly a convienent argument to use now, but again, it's a straw man argument. The problem is he was put into the White House wihtout a background check. He used a false name. He worked for a fake news service. He was a formal male prostitute with no journalistic training other than Morton C. Blackwell's two day seminar. (A seminar that taught him conservative activism.) Once there all he did was lob softballs at the Press Secretary and occasionally the President, or take white house press releases and publish them as news.

It's time for another Joe Conason refresher.

Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart—or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal.

Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps—and listen to the placid mumbling of the "liberal" media now.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Being eaten alive by Anderson Cooper...

"Jeff Gannon" is being fileted by Anderson Cooper. He doesn't have answers to basic questions. As soon as a transcript is available, I will post it here.

He's clearly covering for someone. Otherwise he would be able to answer a question as simple as, "when was the first time you were published as a journalist?"

"Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make your personal life fair game... Why should my past prevent me from having a future?"

Wow. Well, that's certainly a convienent argument to use now, but again, it's a straw man argument. The problem is he was put into the White House wihtout a background check. He used a false name. He worked for a fake news service. He was a formal male prostitute with no journalistic training other than Morton C. Blackwell's two day seminar. (A seminar that taught him conservative activism.) Once there all he did was lob softballs at the Press Secretary and occasionally the President, or take white house press releases and publish them as news.

It's time for another Joe Conason refresher.

Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart—or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal.

Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps—and listen to the placid mumbling of the "liberal" media now.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

"Jeff Gannon" is on Anderson Cooper's show right now...

"I used the name "Jeff Gannon" because it is easier to pronounce than James Guckert."

Dude, WTF?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

"Jeff Gannon" is on Anderson Cooper's show right now...

"I used the name "Jeff Gannon" because it is easier to pronounce than James Guckert."

Dude, WTF?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

What connection did Karl Rove have to "Jeff Gannon?"

What connection did Karl Rove have to "Jeff Gannon?"

The following is from an opinion column on the CBS News website.

Karl Rove took a victory lap at an SRO lunch at the Conservative Political Action Committee meeting at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington on Thursday. After a glowing introduction by Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, Rove proclaimed "conservatism as the dominant political creed in America," but warned Republicans not to get complacent or grow "tired and timid." He recalled the dark days when the Democrats were dominant and cautioned that that could happen again if they let down their guard. The new White House deputy chief of staff also called on conservatives to "seize the mantle of idealism."

Tired and timid are two adjectives never applied to Rove. The architect of the Bush victories in 2000 and 2004 came through the ranks of college Republicans with the late Lee Atwater, and their admitted and alleged dirty tricks are the legends many young political operatives dream of pulling off. So when Jeff Gannon, White House "reporter" for Talon "News," was unmasked last week, the leap to a possible Rove connection was unavoidable. Gannon says that he met Rove only once, at a White House Christmas party, and Gannon is kind of small potatoes for Rove at this point in his career.

But Rove's dominance of White House and Republican politics, Gannon's aggressively partisan work and the ease with which he got day passes for the White House press room the past two years make it hard to believe that he wasn't at least implicitly sanctioned by the "boy genius." Rove, who rarely gave on-the-record interviews to the MSM (mainstream media), had time to talk to GOPUSA, which owns Talon.

GOPUSA and Talon are both owned by Bobby Eberle, a Texas Republican and business associate of conservative direct-mail guru Bruce Eberle who says that Bobby is from the "Texas branch of the Eberle clan." Bobby Eberle told The New York Times that he created Talon to build a news service with a conservative slant and "if someone were to see 'GOPUSA,' there's an instant built-in bias there." No kidding.

Some of the real reporters in the White House pressroom were apparently annoyed at Gannon's presence and his softball, partisan questions, but considered him only a minor irritant. One told me he thought of Gannon as a balance for the opinionated liberal questions of Hearst's Helen Thomas. But what Gannon was up to was not just writing opinion columns or using a different technique to get information. He was a player in Republican campaigns and his work in the South Dakota Senate race illustrates the role he played. It is also a classic example of how political operatives are using the brave new world of the Internet and the blogosphere. Gannon and Talon News appear to be mini-Drudge reports; a "news" source which partisans use to put out negative information, get the attention of the bloggers, talk radio and then the MSM in a way that mere press releases are unable to achieve.

The question still remains, how did he get credentialed to be in the White House press pool given his lack of qualifications and his insistence on using a secret identity?

A Rove connection would fill in quite a few gaps. There are very few people in the White House who would even have the capability of pulling something like this off. What did Karl Rove know, when did he know it, and how exactly was he invovled?

And, as I have seen pointed out on several other sites today, ABC's The Note has something interesting to say about "Jeff Gannon."

Media:
Anne Kornblut finds that Ari Fleischer had doubts about Jeff Gannon and said he stopped calling on the man after a while. LINK

Why is it that most savvy Democrats think this story is going away, while some pretty plugged in Republicans say the opposite?

(Emphasis Added)

I have had several conservative friends try and tell me this is a non story, and I have seen as much printed in the conservative media, but I swear there is more here.

Will we ever know the extent of it? Maybe. Maybe not. If it ever does break, it's going to make a Presidential Blow Job look downright trivial.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

What connection did Karl Rove have to "Jeff Gannon?"

What connection did Karl Rove have to "Jeff Gannon?"

The following is from an opinion column on the CBS News website.

Karl Rove took a victory lap at an SRO lunch at the Conservative Political Action Committee meeting at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington on Thursday. After a glowing introduction by Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, Rove proclaimed "conservatism as the dominant political creed in America," but warned Republicans not to get complacent or grow "tired and timid." He recalled the dark days when the Democrats were dominant and cautioned that that could happen again if they let down their guard. The new White House deputy chief of staff also called on conservatives to "seize the mantle of idealism."

Tired and timid are two adjectives never applied to Rove. The architect of the Bush victories in 2000 and 2004 came through the ranks of college Republicans with the late Lee Atwater, and their admitted and alleged dirty tricks are the legends many young political operatives dream of pulling off. So when Jeff Gannon, White House "reporter" for Talon "News," was unmasked last week, the leap to a possible Rove connection was unavoidable. Gannon says that he met Rove only once, at a White House Christmas party, and Gannon is kind of small potatoes for Rove at this point in his career.

But Rove's dominance of White House and Republican politics, Gannon's aggressively partisan work and the ease with which he got day passes for the White House press room the past two years make it hard to believe that he wasn't at least implicitly sanctioned by the "boy genius." Rove, who rarely gave on-the-record interviews to the MSM (mainstream media), had time to talk to GOPUSA, which owns Talon.

GOPUSA and Talon are both owned by Bobby Eberle, a Texas Republican and business associate of conservative direct-mail guru Bruce Eberle who says that Bobby is from the "Texas branch of the Eberle clan." Bobby Eberle told The New York Times that he created Talon to build a news service with a conservative slant and "if someone were to see 'GOPUSA,' there's an instant built-in bias there." No kidding.

Some of the real reporters in the White House pressroom were apparently annoyed at Gannon's presence and his softball, partisan questions, but considered him only a minor irritant. One told me he thought of Gannon as a balance for the opinionated liberal questions of Hearst's Helen Thomas. But what Gannon was up to was not just writing opinion columns or using a different technique to get information. He was a player in Republican campaigns and his work in the South Dakota Senate race illustrates the role he played. It is also a classic example of how political operatives are using the brave new world of the Internet and the blogosphere. Gannon and Talon News appear to be mini-Drudge reports; a "news" source which partisans use to put out negative information, get the attention of the bloggers, talk radio and then the MSM in a way that mere press releases are unable to achieve.

The question still remains, how did he get credentialed to be in the White House press pool given his lack of qualifications and his insistence on using a secret identity?

A Rove connection would fill in quite a few gaps. There are very few people in the White House who would even have the capability of pulling something like this off. What did Karl Rove know, when did he know it, and how exactly was he invovled?

And, as I have seen pointed out on several other sites today, ABC's The Note has something interesting to say about "Jeff Gannon."

Media:
Anne Kornblut finds that Ari Fleischer had doubts about Jeff Gannon and said he stopped calling on the man after a while. LINK

Why is it that most savvy Democrats think this story is going away, while some pretty plugged in Republicans say the opposite?

(Emphasis Added)

I have had several conservative friends try and tell me this is a non story, and I have seen as much printed in the conservative media, but I swear there is more here.

Will we ever know the extent of it? Maybe. Maybe not. If it ever does break, it's going to make a Presidential Blow Job look downright trivial.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Everyone should read this...

Hopefully without drawing the ire of AmericaBlog, I am posting an entire entry from over there, to make sure it is read.

If you wish to link back to it, do so here.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Sanctimonious bullshit for the Hotline
by John in DC - 2/16/2005 03:59:00 PM

The Hotline is a big inside-the-beltway publication read by all.

Amid the semi-hysteria over the blogosphere's growing influence, one important question has been left largely unanswered: Does anything go? -- Bloggers have claimed credit for at least helping to bring down several journos in recent months -- Dan Rather and Mary Mapes at CBS, CNN's Eason Jordan and conservative WH reporter James "Jeff Gannon" Guckert. All three episodes featured ideological bloggers either uncovering new facts about these folks or raising questions about their work. But the Guckert episode alone has included a focus on his personal life. -- The cry from bloggers and voices on the left is: How does an (apparent) gay prostitute get (alleged) access to classified gov't documents? (Wouldn't Bob Barr have already called for a special prosecutor if this were 1997?) But if Guckert's personal life is an issue, are the private lives of all reporters now fair game? Aside from issues like Guckerts, legal records, financial matters and even pure gossip could offer a wealth of targets for those web warriors with a grudge. Where does it end, and who's next? Does this mean reporters now know what life's like for a political candidate?

More blah blah blah about Jeff Gannon's private life being offlimits. Let's all say it again, loud and clear. Jeff's previous job, and apparently current job since the Web sites are still live, is not his private life any more than outing Hotline reporters as, well, Hotline reporters is their private life. Whether they like or not, whether I like it or not, running a prostitution service goes against every family value that this administration and Guckert supposedly stand for.

Where was the high-and-mighty Hotline when George Bush, with the help of buddies like Guckert, tried to write me and 20 million of my friends out of the Constitution last year? Where was Accuracy in Media, the conservative bloggers, and everyone else who is defending Guckert's "private life" when my private life was going to singled out and savaged in our nation's most sacred document simply to get a few votes?

You've got a lot of nerve, Hotline. The entire GOP and its mainstream media sympathizers have a lot of nerve. We're talking about a hooker getting special access to the White House, the president, and intelligence information, and somehow everyone has suddenly discovered a conscience about homosexuals and hookers. Oh how I wish that conscience were real. But it's not. Bash a fag, bash a whore, and the GOP eats it all up. They throw us to their hateful, bigoted religious right buddies for votes with glee, while Mary Cheney cowers in the corner and Ken Mehlman runs for the shelter of the off-the-record quote.

Well newsflash Washington. The GOP is the one that rose gay-bashing and gay-baiting and sex-baiting to an art, and JeffJimGuckertGannon willingly joined the family values parade in print and in passion. They're trying to ban condoms, pornography, AIDS education. They take children away from gays, and want to make our very lives a crime. GOP Senators compare us to kleptomaniacs, alcoholics, and man-dog sex. And they can't even handle a bronze breast on a statue.

And we're the ones picking a fight over sex.

Spare me your sanctimonious bullshit now that those of us in the gay community and on the left have finally - finally - started to fight fire with fire by simply holding you to the very standards you legislate over us. We are simply giving the GOP the sex-less utopia it's always wanted. How does it feel?

Oh, gee, the Hotline warns, this might establish a precedent. Really? You mean the GOP might respond by using our sex lives against us as a weapon to destroy us and curry votes with bigots?

I don't like this battle, I don't enjoy this battle. I hate this battle. But the battle began years ago, and until now, we sat back and watched and waited and hoped it would go away. Well it's not going away. We have a choice. We can sit back and watch the GOP sex police destroy us. Or we can fight back. And I can think of nothing more poetic, nothing more just, than fighting back by simply holding them to their own standards.

PS And don't even get me started on Valerie Plame.

What he said!

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Everyone should read this...

Hopefully without drawing the ire of AmericaBlog, I am posting an entire entry from over there, to make sure it is read.

If you wish to link back to it, do so here.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Sanctimonious bullshit for the Hotline
by John in DC - 2/16/2005 03:59:00 PM

The Hotline is a big inside-the-beltway publication read by all.

Amid the semi-hysteria over the blogosphere's growing influence, one important question has been left largely unanswered: Does anything go? -- Bloggers have claimed credit for at least helping to bring down several journos in recent months -- Dan Rather and Mary Mapes at CBS, CNN's Eason Jordan and conservative WH reporter James "Jeff Gannon" Guckert. All three episodes featured ideological bloggers either uncovering new facts about these folks or raising questions about their work. But the Guckert episode alone has included a focus on his personal life. -- The cry from bloggers and voices on the left is: How does an (apparent) gay prostitute get (alleged) access to classified gov't documents? (Wouldn't Bob Barr have already called for a special prosecutor if this were 1997?) But if Guckert's personal life is an issue, are the private lives of all reporters now fair game? Aside from issues like Guckerts, legal records, financial matters and even pure gossip could offer a wealth of targets for those web warriors with a grudge. Where does it end, and who's next? Does this mean reporters now know what life's like for a political candidate?

More blah blah blah about Jeff Gannon's private life being offlimits. Let's all say it again, loud and clear. Jeff's previous job, and apparently current job since the Web sites are still live, is not his private life any more than outing Hotline reporters as, well, Hotline reporters is their private life. Whether they like or not, whether I like it or not, running a prostitution service goes against every family value that this administration and Guckert supposedly stand for.

Where was the high-and-mighty Hotline when George Bush, with the help of buddies like Guckert, tried to write me and 20 million of my friends out of the Constitution last year? Where was Accuracy in Media, the conservative bloggers, and everyone else who is defending Guckert's "private life" when my private life was going to singled out and savaged in our nation's most sacred document simply to get a few votes?

You've got a lot of nerve, Hotline. The entire GOP and its mainstream media sympathizers have a lot of nerve. We're talking about a hooker getting special access to the White House, the president, and intelligence information, and somehow everyone has suddenly discovered a conscience about homosexuals and hookers. Oh how I wish that conscience were real. But it's not. Bash a fag, bash a whore, and the GOP eats it all up. They throw us to their hateful, bigoted religious right buddies for votes with glee, while Mary Cheney cowers in the corner and Ken Mehlman runs for the shelter of the off-the-record quote.

Well newsflash Washington. The GOP is the one that rose gay-bashing and gay-baiting and sex-baiting to an art, and JeffJimGuckertGannon willingly joined the family values parade in print and in passion. They're trying to ban condoms, pornography, AIDS education. They take children away from gays, and want to make our very lives a crime. GOP Senators compare us to kleptomaniacs, alcoholics, and man-dog sex. And they can't even handle a bronze breast on a statue.

And we're the ones picking a fight over sex.

Spare me your sanctimonious bullshit now that those of us in the gay community and on the left have finally - finally - started to fight fire with fire by simply holding you to the very standards you legislate over us. We are simply giving the GOP the sex-less utopia it's always wanted. How does it feel?

Oh, gee, the Hotline warns, this might establish a precedent. Really? You mean the GOP might respond by using our sex lives against us as a weapon to destroy us and curry votes with bigots?

I don't like this battle, I don't enjoy this battle. I hate this battle. But the battle began years ago, and until now, we sat back and watched and waited and hoped it would go away. Well it's not going away. We have a choice. We can sit back and watch the GOP sex police destroy us. Or we can fight back. And I can think of nothing more poetic, nothing more just, than fighting back by simply holding them to their own standards.

PS And don't even get me started on Valerie Plame.

What he said!

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Just as I said...

The amount of denial from those on the right is shocking. From "The National Ledger."

Reporter Jeff Gannon/James Guckert resigned last week from Talon News.Com. The left seemed very pleased and prepared for the onslaught of liberal mainstream media coverage that would follow. But they were quickly disappointed. Salon (not Talon) spent two columns about it on Monday and now NY Observer columnist Joe Conason wonders why the "Liberal’ Media [is] Silent About [the] Guckert Saga."

The answer, there is just no story here.

I'm not even certain what the left wants. They have flatly stated that Guckert/Gannon is a fake reporter from a fake news service. It seems they are upset that he had access to White House briefings and press conferences because he was gay, not a member of the old media and was partisan. Shouldn't the new media members be in favor of more access? Most of the new media carries a bias of some sort, but should that bar them from the process of reporting? The answer is of course, no.

That is most certainly not the story. The story is that a former male prostitute, funded by Texas republicans assumed a new identity. Then he took a two day journalism seminar run by Morton C. Blackwell. Then he was placed in the White House without a background check to lob softballs at Scott McClellan and The President of the United States.

Trying to turn this into some fantasy that liberals are upset all of this happened because he was gay is the most patently absurd thing I have ever heard.

Remember, these people think you’re stupid.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Just as I said...

The amount of denial from those on the right is shocking. From "The National Ledger."

Reporter Jeff Gannon/James Guckert resigned last week from Talon News.Com. The left seemed very pleased and prepared for the onslaught of liberal mainstream media coverage that would follow. But they were quickly disappointed. Salon (not Talon) spent two columns about it on Monday and now NY Observer columnist Joe Conason wonders why the "Liberal’ Media [is] Silent About [the] Guckert Saga."

The answer, there is just no story here.

I'm not even certain what the left wants. They have flatly stated that Guckert/Gannon is a fake reporter from a fake news service. It seems they are upset that he had access to White House briefings and press conferences because he was gay, not a member of the old media and was partisan. Shouldn't the new media members be in favor of more access? Most of the new media carries a bias of some sort, but should that bar them from the process of reporting? The answer is of course, no.

That is most certainly not the story. The story is that a former male prostitute, funded by Texas republicans assumed a new identity. Then he took a two day journalism seminar run by Morton C. Blackwell. Then he was placed in the White House without a background check to lob softballs at Scott McClellan and The President of the United States.

Trying to turn this into some fantasy that liberals are upset all of this happened because he was gay is the most patently absurd thing I have ever heard.

Remember, these people think you’re stupid.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Howard Kurtz has more...

From yesterday's Washington Post.

The Jeff Gannon story is still bouncing around the Internet, and now there are pictures.

The kind you shouldn't open up in the office.

The X-rated twist has made for a lot of clandestine clicking in a town where Deep Throat conjures images not of a porn star but of a man in a parking garage. But it has also deepened the debate over blogging and the tactics used to drive a conservative reporter from his job as White House correspondent for two Web sites owned by a Republican activist.

In most Beltway melodramas, the resignation ends the story. The problem for Gannon, whose real name is James Dale Guckert, is that he told The Washington Post and CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week that he never launched the Web sites whose provocative names he had registered, such as hotmilitarystud.com. But a Web designer in California said yesterday that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request.

Read the rest here.

Think about what Joe Conason said again:

Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart—or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal.

There will be those who claim that this is a non story. Those people are fools. Had the above quote from Conason been the story, we would be sitting through our second round of impeachment hearings.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Howard Kurtz has more...

From yesterday's Washington Post.

The Jeff Gannon story is still bouncing around the Internet, and now there are pictures.

The kind you shouldn't open up in the office.

The X-rated twist has made for a lot of clandestine clicking in a town where Deep Throat conjures images not of a porn star but of a man in a parking garage. But it has also deepened the debate over blogging and the tactics used to drive a conservative reporter from his job as White House correspondent for two Web sites owned by a Republican activist.

In most Beltway melodramas, the resignation ends the story. The problem for Gannon, whose real name is James Dale Guckert, is that he told The Washington Post and CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week that he never launched the Web sites whose provocative names he had registered, such as hotmilitarystud.com. But a Web designer in California said yesterday that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request.

Read the rest here.

Think about what Joe Conason said again:

Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart—or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal.

There will be those who claim that this is a non story. Those people are fools. Had the above quote from Conason been the story, we would be sitting through our second round of impeachment hearings.

-The Oklahoma Hippy