Protests Planned For GOP Convention
Dave Simpson
Won't they ever grow up and get real?
The "Impeach Bush" crowd remains a bunch of self-discrediting losers.
I'd rather see the divisions among the Dims turn into a brawl inside
and outside their Party's convention. Now that would be entertaining,
as opposed to this worthless-loser Usual Suspect stuff.
Or, why don't these jokers make their own party and have their own
convention?
These bozos are pathetic and predictable:
http://www.counterconvention.org/
"Protest" and related articles follow.
...
[Reuters]
Anti-War Protest Set for Republican Convention
A coalition of anti-war groups plan to greet delegates to next
summer's Republican National Convention with a massive protest against
U.S. foreign policy, hoping to keep the Iraqi war alive as an issue in
the 2004 election, organizers said on Tuesday.
The march could be one of the largest demonstrations in U.S. history,
organizers said.
The coalition called United for Peace and Justice wants to march
through Manhattan to Central Park on Aug. 29, the day before the
Republican Party meets to nominate President Bush in his reelection
effort.
"United for Peace and Justice will be organizing what we believe will
be one of the largest demonstrations in this country's history," said
organizer Leslie Cagan at a news conference. "We believe it will be in
the hundreds of thousands."
The capture of Saddam Hussein has not changed the group's plans, she
added.
"There's no evidence at all that Saddam Hussein has any connection to
the 9/11 attacks," she said. "In fact there's yet to be any evidence
for any of the reasons the Bush administration used to go to war.
"What we hope is this will be a turning point for what is going on in
Iraq," she said. "It is time to end the war and end the occupation."
The group also plans to stage protests outside the Democratic National
Convention in Boston in July. Of the nine Democrats seeking the
party's nomination, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has made his
opposition to the Iraq war one of the major issues in his campaign.
In New York, the protest coalition has applied for a permit to march
past Madison Square Garden, where the Republican convention will be
held, she said.
Protests have become commonplace at U.S. political conventions, and
organizers of the party events in the past have made efforts to keep
the demonstrations apart from the delegates and other attending
officials.
Protests outside the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles in
2000 turned violent, with police firing on the crowd with rubber
bullets. The same summer, hundreds of protesters were arrested at the
Republican National Convention in Philadelphia.
Organizers said they want to send a message to Bush and other
Republicans to change the nation's foreign policy.
"It is time to end the empire-building agenda of this country. It is
time to build a foreign policy based on respect for international law
and respect for the sovereignty of all independent nations," Cagan
said.
...
[AP]
New York Civil Liberties Union sues to change police tactics before
GOP convention
by Sara Kugler
The New York Civil Liberties Union filed three federal lawsuits
Wednesday claiming the city's police tactics during protests are
unconstitutional and will hinder the right to demonstrate during next
year's Republican National Convention.
The NYCLU based the lawsuits on a Feb. 15 anti-war rally that drew
tens of thousands of people. The groups says police blocked
demonstrators' access to the protest in some areas and controlled
crowds with unnecessary force.
During that rally, which stretched for 20 blocks along First Avenue,
police cordoned off side streets, and many protesters complained that
officers in riot gear and on horseback prevented them from reaching
the rally.
The NYCLU sued on behalf of three demonstrators, including a
60-year-old diabetic woman who uses a wheelchair, who claim police
unfairly confined them during the February demonstration.
"Each of these cases is an example of a serious problem in policing
policies, which will have an impact on the freedom to demonstrate at
the Republican National Convention," said Donna Lieberman, executive
director of the NYCLU.
Groups began planning demonstrations months ago for the four-day
convention that begins next Aug. 30 at Madison Square Garden.
Thousands of demonstrators are expected.
Kate O'Brien Ahlers, a spokeswoman for the city law department, said
she could not comment because she had not seen the court papers.
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said it's department policy not to
discuss pending litigation. He said police are gearing up to make sure
the convention goes off without a hitch and everyone is kept safe.
GOP puts spin on NYC 2004 convention stage
by Sara Kugler
The Republican Party may break from tradition for next year's
convention in Manhattan by putting its main show on a rotating stage
in the center of Madison Square Garden, with an elevated floor to
conceal cables, technicians and other backstage operations.
Mike Miller, director of operations for the Aug. 30-Sept. 3
convention, said Tuesday that he and other organizers are pushing
approval of the "convention in the round" plan over two other
proposals that echo past conventions with a stage at one end. They
hope to have an answer from Republican leaders by early next year.
The possible setup was among several details convention organizers
described to reporters during a walk-through for journalists expecting
to cover the GOP gathering. Much of the four-hour briefing was
dedicated to discussing work space for reporters, photographers and
television crews.
The convention's chief executive officer, Bill Harris, said organizers
are "in good shape today and ahead of schedule in terms of planning."
He said the party is looking to hold convention events at several
sites outside the Garden, such as Central Park and Ellis Island, but
he declined to give details.
Harris also noted the odd partnerships that are forming in a city
where Republicans have never staged a convention and Democrats
outnumber them by a 5-1 ratio.
"Although the majority of people I deal with in New York City are
probably Democrats," he said, "I have found extraordinary support for
this event from all sectors of this city."
The city's host committee has already collected $64 million in pledges
_ past its target _ and much of it has been promised by wealthy
Democrats, who say their money supports tourism and the city's
economy. The convention budget is $91 million.
Expenses include transporting delegates, security, sanitation, renting
the space and, in some cases, transforming it. One major project
planned is a temporary pedestrian bridge; another is a possible
upgrade to the air conditioning in the press facility.
The House last week approved a $373 billion spending package that
includes $25 million in security money for New York and Boston, the
host of the Democratic convention.
Few details have been released about security for the New York
convention, which is expected to draw 50,000 people for the event
itself, 15,000 journalists to cover it and tens of thousands of
protesters.
Convention officials declined to specify security plans on Tuesday, as
anti-war protesters held a news conference outside to discuss a
massive protest to take place as the convention begins.
United for Peace and Justice, which staged an anti-war march that drew
tens of thousands to the city in February, released plans for a midday
march on Aug. 29, the day most delegates will arrive in New York. The
group plans to march from 23rd Street and Eighth Avenue, past
convention headquarters, to a rally in Central Park.
"It's going to be the largest, liveliest march in decades," said
spokesman Bill Dobbs. "This march will draw many people who are
unhappy with (President) Bush's empire."
The city has yet to approve the march; the group's permit application
is pending. Officials expect many protests to erupt without warning,
causing additional strains for police.
Harris, the convention's CEO, said organizers were in security
discussions with city, state and federal officials and were "confident
we will be able to have a security plan which will enable us to have a
safe and orderly convention."
...
[World Net Daily]
Anti-war protests to hit Republican convention
Organizer: There's no evidence Saddam 'has any connection to the 9-11
attacks'
Anti-war activists are planning a massive protest at next summer's
Republican National Convention in Manhattan to voice their opposition
to U.S. foreign policy, specifically the war in Iraq.
The plan calls for a march to Central Park on Aug. 29, the day before
the party plans to nominate President George W. Bush for re-election,
Reuters reported.
"United for Peace and Justice will be organizing what we believe will
be one of the largest demonstrations in this country's history,"
organizer Leslie Cagan told reporters at a news conference. "We
believe it will be in the hundreds of thousands."
Cagan said the capture of Saddam Hussein has not altered the group's
plans.
"There's no evidence at all that Saddam Hussein has any connection to
the 9-11 attacks," she said. "In fact there's yet to be any evidence
for any of the reasons the Bush administration used to go to war."
The activist said she hopes the event will be a "turning point" on the
Iraq issue and bring an end to the "occupation" of the nation.
Reuters reports the group also plans to stage protests outside the
Democratic National Convention in Boston in July, though no prediction
of the number of participants was given.
Cagan said she hoped the protest march would send a strong message.
"It is time to end the empire-building agenda of this country. It is
time to build a foreign policy based on respect for international law
and respect for the sovereignty of all independent nations," Cagan
said.
Cagan's contention that Saddam was not involved in 9-11 comes in the
wake of a report 9-11 mastermind Mohammed Atta was trained in Baghdad
by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal and had contact with Hussein
shortly before the attack on America.
Related story:
Anti-war leaders charge Nazis rule White House
Movement rallies this weekend, insists attack grounds for indictment
of Bush
by Sherrie Gossett
"They are criminal offenses, they are high crimes, they are indictable
offenses, and they are impeachable offenses."
This is how former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark described
President George W. Bush's foreign policy at an Oct. 26 anti-war rally
in Washington, D.C.
Now comes the encore.
Americans who insist the Bush administration has not made an adequate
case for an attack on Iraq are gearing up for more intense and
dramatic protests. Joint planning among anti-war groups and well-known
figures is quickly coalescing and reaching critical mass.
In an interview this week with WorldNetDaily, former U.N. weapons
inspector Scott Ritter echoed Clark.
"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high
crimes and misdemeanors," Ritter told WND. "Murder is a high crime and
misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder
when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war
which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."
This weekend will see a massive street mobilization of protesters in
both Washington, D.C., and San Francisco. The march, organized by
Clark's International A.N.S.W.E.R group, Act Now to Stop War and End
Racism, carries the taglines "No War Against Iraq" and "Eliminate U.S.
Weapons of Mass Destruction."
There will be a rally at 11 a.m. on the west side of the Capitol
building and a march on the Washington, D.C ., Navy yard. In
conjunction with the national march on Washington, D.C., tomorrow,
there will be a Youth and Student Rally & March, gathering at 11:00
a.m. at the Department of "In-Justice" to protest "attacks against the
Arab and Muslim communities."
Meanwhile, today in Gaza, a senior member of the militant Islamic
movement Hamas said that Muslims and Arabs will attack American
targets everywhere if the United States goes to war against Iraq.
The "youth rally" will be followed by a "March to the Presidential
Palace," the White House, for a "Youth & Student Weapons Inspection. "
On Monday, Black Voices for Peace will be organizing what leaders only
term "an important activity in Washington, D.C."
The organizers of the rally encourage people to bring banners and
puppets, to dress as weapons inspectors, "to find as many creative
methods to dramatize our demands in opposition to a war of aggression
and in support of a reorganization of society's priorities that would
put people's needs ahead of the Pentagon and the war profiteers in
corporate America."
Protesters in San Francisco will assemble at 11 a.m. at the foot of
Market Street at Embarcadero. They will rally, then march to Civic
Center Plaza at Grove and Larkin, adjacent to City Hall, for a closing
rally with speakers, entertainment and cultural performances.
Disarming the U.S.
According to the group organizing the protests, the International
A.N.S.W.E.R. group, the real threat is America: "The world is being
menaced by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a government
that is openly threatening and planning to use nuclear weapons in
pre-emptive wars of aggression against others, including non-nuclear
countries."
The group adds, " the real threat of nuclear war and the use of
weapons of mass destruction arises within the U.S. administration."
The protesters say they plan to demand instead that "these hundreds of
billions of dollars be spent on jobs, education, housing, health care
and to meet human needs."
A "people's inspection team" will call for unfettered access and a
full declaration of U.S. non-conventional weapons systems.
A.N.S.W.E.R. says it believes that all weapons of mass destruction
should be banished from the planet, but adds that the U.S. should be
the first to do so: "This is impossible until the biggest arsenal of
weapons of mass destruction – the one at the disposal of trigger-happy
George W. Bush and Co. – is eliminated. Any other call for disarmament
will not be viewed as legitimate by the rest of the world."
'High crimes and misdemeanors'?
The rallies come on the heels of the release of a book by two anti-war
leaders who accuse President Bush of planning "high crimes and
misdemeanors" in his strategic theory of a pre-emptive military strike
against Iraq.
"Empire at home: George W. Bush and John Ashcroft v. the Bill of
Rights" was written by civil rights attorneys Mara Verheyden-Hilliard
and Carlo Messineo of the Partnership for Civil Justice.
Verheyden-Hilliard was the emcee at the October Washington, D.C.,
rally.
Verheyden-Hillard told WorldNetDaily the book "breaks out the Patriot
Act in simple matter-of-fact language" adding that "most of Congress
didn't even read [the Patriot Act]."
"I sought to demystify it in a book," Verheyden-Hillard said. "It's a
legal analysis, written for the people of the U.S., so they can arm
themselves with education and understanding so they can challenge the
government."
In the book, Verheyden-Hillard and Messineo seek to challenge what
they call "the government's sweeping new legal authorities, including
the Patriot Act and the war against civil rights and civil liberties
being conducted by the Bush administration."
The authors argue that "the war on civil rights at home is the
domestic component of the Bush administration's larger program of
conquest and empire."
Verheyden-Hilliard told WND that there is a "formidable and potent
anti-war movement" and that "there is enormous recognition by people
in U.S. that there are two agendas at work in the White House: empire,
and the global war drive that is pushing forward."
She argues that these are not tied to 9-11, but part of a pre-existing
agenda of Bush administration
'The Bush Bastille'
Verheyden-Hilliard also contends that "one thing that holds back the
opposition of people in the U.S. is this institution of repressive
government authority versus people in the U.S.," citing a post-9-11
"immediate demonization of Arab-Americans."
"So many were swept up off street, with no lawyers – no right to trial
and no ability for others to ask questions," she said referring to
this "right to jail" as the "Bush Bastille"
Verheyden-Hilliard also is a lawyer for the International Action
Center, or IAC, the parent group of A.N.S.W.E.R.
Given the IAC's links to dictatorial regimes worldwide, WorldNetDaily
asked Veryheyden-Hilliard if this wasn't a case of significant
hypocrisy.
"I'm not a member of the IAC," she answered, "but of an IAC-led
coalition."
She termed critical news coverage "heavy red-baiting" and added
"they're not supporters of dictators."
She added that many were raising questions about impeachment of
President Bush, adding that "many more are seriously evaluating it and
discussing what mechanisms are appropriate to it."
The author emphasizes that "all power is in the hands of the people to
place restriction on government authority" and that "the people have
the right to order and challenge and end government wrongdoing."
Verheyden-Hillard says those protesting the war should take action on
multiple fronts, "fighting, agitating, and causing progress – it's not
about waiting for government,"
"We need to fight by being in the streets," she said, "by educating
our neighbors, and taking appropriate legal action. We can't sit back
and wait for government to do the right thing."
Verheyden-Hilliard adds that she is "not reliant on the Democratic
Party to carry forward a people's movement in the U.S. ?Tom Daschle
was out supporting Bush and the war drive."
WorldNetDaily also asked the author about Al Gore's prior use of
anti-war lingo such as "empire" and "global domination" and whether
this meant he was attempting to align himself, prior to backing out of
the presidential race, with the anti-Bush momentum of the anti-war
movement.
"Oh, a principled stand on war from Al Gore? It seems quite unlikely.
He's not aligning himself with the anti-war movement," she said.
Scott Ritter: Nazis in the White House?
"When you go to war you open up a Pandora's box, the results of which
cannot be predicted," maintains former weapons inspector Scott Ritter.
"Therefore, there better be a darned good reason to go to war. It's
got to be worth the sacrifice that you're asking others to make."
WorldNetDaily recently interviewed Ritter via telephone as he drove
from his Albany, N.Y., home to appear on Fox News. Throughout the
interview, he contended that media have consistently missed his
primary concern regarding the proposed military strike against Iraq.
Ritter said the issue is the abrogation of the rule of law, which he
views as setting the U.S. up for a particularly nasty potential
scenario – U.S. troops cornered in Iraq, subject to chemical attack,
which then prompts the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.
"The Bush administration has put forward a nuclear policy planning
document which clearly states a scenario in which nuclear weapons can
be used pre-emptively and that scenario is tens of thousands of troops
in a hostile land, threatened by the potential of chemical and
biological weapons," he said. "And clearly, Iraq could evolve into
such a situation.
"What's wrong with diplomacy, what's wrong with inspectors, what's
wrong with the rule of law?" he asked.
WorldNetDaily asked Ritter whether he agreed with Mara
Verheyden-Hilliard's thesis regarding Bush's foreign policy
constituting a violation of the United Nations and Nuremberg charters.
Ritter reiterated that the U.S. is a signatory to the U.N. Charter,
which "stipulates that war is rejected as a means to resolve disputes
and conflicts," although he allowed that there are exceptions, as
"when the collective, the U.N. Security Council, finds a situation
exists that threatens international peace. Then under chapter seven of
the charter, it can be resolved by use of force."
Still, Ritter does not find the current situation in Iraq to meet this
criteria, and therefore views the idea of a pre-emptive strike as
unconstitutional and a violation of American law.
"It has no grounds in legality," he said.
"This is a constitutional issue," he continued. "I think there can be
no doubt his policy is a violation of the Constitution, except that
constitutional lawyers will say that judicial system will not get
involved in matters of national security ? There are interpretation
issues – what are the limits of executive authority? ?I think that
it's not so much the legality of his actions. I view it as being
unconstitutional ?I'm sure many will say the president has these
authorities regarding national security."
Ritter also said that impeachment and indictment were legitimate
issues.
"What I would find to be grounds of impeachment is the president lying
to the American people," he said. "I believe the president has lied to
the American people. I believe the vice president has lied to the
American people.
"And if we go to war where American service members are killed, I
think the president should be held accountable for this judicially,"
Ritter stated.
"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high
crimes and misdemeanors," said Ritter. "Murder is a high crime and
misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder
when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war
which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."
WND also asked Ritter about comments he made in an interview with
William Pitt, appearing in the book "War on Iraq: What Team Bush
doesn't want you to know."
In that interview, Ritter said that "Donald Rumsfeld was politically
dead. No one thought of Donald Rumsfeld as having any potential. Paul
Wolfowitz was seen as a raving lunatic of the far right. Richard Perle
is not called 'The Prince of Darkness' without cause."
Ritter characterized the leaders as "sniping from the fringes," and
said "suddenly they're running the show," adding that for this reason,
these are "extremely dangerous times."
WND asked Ritter whether he viewed these people as having taken this
turn since taking office, or always having been that way.
"Well, they were always this way," he said. "Wolfowitz was always a
very dangerous man. He is a walking affront to the Constitution of the
U.S. He is a walking affront to international law. The same with
Richard Perle . He was openly boastful how President Bush has no other
choice but go to war because he's committed too much political
capital."
Ritter concluded, "If Richard Perle thinks [that's] a reason to go to
war then he might as well remove the American flag from outside his
building and put on a swastika and call himself what he is, which is a
Nazi. This is the rule of law, not about going to war for political
convenience of any single individual."
WorldNetDaily then asked Ritter why, if these political figures were
always this way, he voted them into power by voting for President
Bush. The former U.N. inspector argued that he didn't vote for them,
just for Bush, adding that Gore was a "known commodity – a liar," and
that he had actually initially supported Sen. John McCain.
Prior to the presidential election, media already were commenting on
one of Bush's top foreign policy advisers, Wolfowitz, noting he
"advocates pulling out all stops to get rid of Saddam Hussein." Also
publicly known were his other top advisers at that time, Rumsfeld,
Karl Rove, Brent Scowcroft, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Cheney.
'Freepers' enter the fray
Kristinn Taylor, co-leader of the D.C. chapter of the grass-roots,
web-based group Free Republic, commenting on Ritter's remarks, said
"President Bush is engaging in diplomacy right now, and he is
operating under the rule of law and is under the authority of Congress
and the United Nations. Going to war with Iraq is not written in
stone."
Taylor contends that "before President Bush started leading, nothing
was getting done. You have to push against a recalcitrant regime like
Saddam Hussein's, just as Reagan did with the Soviet Union before."
Referring to Ritter's comments about "murder" of military members,
Taylor told WND, "That's a disgusting way to look at the value of the
military. President Bush is not that kind of man."
He added, "Who knows what else we're going to find? The administration
is operating in the framework of the rule of law and international
law."
Taylor has helped to organize a counter-demonstration to be held in
D.C. organized by the D.C. Chapter of Free Republic (FReepers) and
MOVE-OUT – Marines and Other Veterans Engaging Outrageous Un-American
Traitors.
"The Patriots Rally" will be held at Constitution Gardens on the Mall
near 21st Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., today from 9 a.m.
until 10:30 a.m.
Afterward, they will move to the Marine barracks at 8th and I Streets,
S.E., to stand on the sidewalk along the march route of the anti-war
demonstrators and "exercise our right to offer our opinion of their
public parade as it goes by us."
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Dornan, who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.
in the 1960s will be among those who address the crowd. Taylor said
the purpose of the counter-demonstration was to "show support for our
men and women in uniform who are fighting the war on terror and
preparing to defend America from outlaw regimes such as Iraq and North
Korea."
Iraqi-Americans team up with vets
The FReepers and MOVE-OUT also will host Aziz Al-Taee of the
Iraqi-American Council as speaker.
"Theirs is a voice that isn't heard in the media," Taylor complains.
Aziz recently appeared on Greta van Susteren's Fox News show, Taylor
said, and now he is starting to get a "few appearances." He adds that
Aziz and his group publicly demean Osama bin Laden in very strong
terms, something that isn't seen or heard – a very rare thing in the
Islamic world."
He added that the two groups agree on a very fundamental issue: a
peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Taylor thoroughly
denounced anti-Semitism, saying "We're not racist, and we don't like
people who are."
The FReeper leader was referring to last April's "pro-Palestinian"
march in D.C., organized also by A.N.S.W.E.R. He called it a "horrific
rally," saying "I saw more swastikas there than in the films of the
old Nuremberg rallies."
Taylor has now reported that, unlike the October rally, "C-SPAN has
informed me that they will not be covering 'The Patriots Rally for
America,' but they will be broadcasting live tomorrow the 'anti-war'
rally in D.C. put on by the communist front group IAC-ANSWER."
Regarding the veterans who will be protesting with Taylor, he
explained "there were Vietnam vets who were really upset when at the
October rally, next to the memorial wall, a spokesman said 'The men
whose names are on that wall – if they were here today, they would say
no to the war on Iraq.'"
"The vets are coming to say they got it all wrong," he said. "They're
proud to have served their country trying to prevent South Vietnam
from becoming enslaved by communists, and as far as they're concerned,
they left South Vietnam free, but were let down by politicians."
One Vietnam vet, who wanted to go only by the name Sam, told WND,
"They have every right under our Constitution to peacefully protest.
It's one of the rights we fought for. However, they also need to
realize that the men and women who protect their right to protest are
not the enemy."
"They can protest against the government policies they disagree with,
but I wonder how many are 'anti-war' and not really 'anti-anything
American.' I also believe, with all my heart that, in this case,
they're dead wrong. This one is necessary."
'Reverse-McCarthyism'
Taylor is especially disdainful of the controversial roots and
connections of some anti-war leaders who, he says, cultivate close
ties to repressive communist regimes like Cuba, Iraq, China and Cuba.
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, wrote that these "Marxists, who
have now made common cause with Islamic and Palestinian groups and
causes, are still dedicated to the destruction of our democracy and
free enterprise system. They are skillful at manipulating front groups
and the media to conceal their true aims. They brought between 70,000
and 100,000 people to Washington, D.C. on April 20, many of them Arabs
and Muslims, making it the largest pro-Palestinian demonstration in
the U.S. ever."
Investigative reporter Kevin Coogan, author of a study on the postwar
right, "Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar
Fascist International," told WorldNetDaily: "My only wish would be to
make the point that the WWP [World Workers Party, parent group of the
IAC and A.N.S.W.E.R.], like the Revolutionary Communist Party, isn't
horrible simply because it is leftist or Marxist per se; it is
horrible that both groups' raison d'皻re has been on
cheerleading the worst Stalinist and human rights abusing governments
in the world, from Pol Pot to Saddam, as long as they are feuding with
America."
These groups, said Coogan, operate "under the pretext of being
peaceful humanitarians concerned with human rights, poverty, and the
suffering of innocent people. This is the real reason why the
influence of both groups today is such a scandal."
Coogan's expose on the front groups driving and controlling the
current anti-war movement has resulted in a "reverse-McCarthyism,"
knee-jerk reaction, he said noting that his reporting is usually
labeled "red-baiting" and "an exercise in McCarthyism."
"However, to me it just meant that I had hit a nerve, as none of the
attacks raised any factual errors in my piece," he said.
Ironically, those making such accusations, seem ignorant of the fact
that the investigative work exposing such groups was in many cases
pioneered by leftist and communist journalists working for underground
newspapers.
Coogan cited the work done by Christopher Hitchens and two other
reporters for the left-leaning Nation as other examples of pioneering
work.
Meanwhile, some anti-war protesters are wondering whether leadership
will "stay on message" this weekend.
Regarding the October A.N.S.W.E.R.-led rally in San Francisco,
Anti-war.com's Justin Raimondo, a self-described 'warp-speed
Libertarian,' criticized leadership's lack of focus: "The Usual
Suspects ?all mouthing the same tired old phrases and subjecting their
captive audience to every pathetic leftie cause under the sun: free
Mumia Abu Jamal (won't somebody free us from him?), 'money for jobs,
not for war' (hey, bud, you get a job, and then you get the money!),
'transgender rights' (say what?), the whole kit-n'-kaboodle. Yikes!
Indeed, at the end of it, I was convinced that I had wandered into the
wrong demonstration, because we didn't hear much about the war, or why
we ought to be against it, or what any of the arguments for
non-intervention in the affairs of other nations might be."
...
[New York Press]
Cruisin' for a Bruisin'
No luxury liner can insulate the GOP from New York's masses.
by Michelangelo Signorile
The plan by House Majority Leader, Tom "the Hammer" DeLay, to
quarantine Republican politicians, donors, delegates and assorted
other GOPers out on a cruise ship in the Hudson during next year's
Republican National Convention has been sunk. But for Bush opponents,
there sure is a lot of blood in the water. With Democrats hooting and
howling, and many fellow Republicans quietly wincing, DeLay caved, but
only after letting the controversy play out for a while, so determined
was he to have his colleagues stay docked off Manhattan Island. The
dramatic debacle revealed that the Republicans–including Tough Guy
DeLay–are wimps of the first order, scared to death of mingling among
the Clinton-loving, sodomite-friendly masses.
What are they truly afraid of? Some have speculated about a fear of
terrorism–that new old standby–particularly since DeLay's spokesman
said the ship would provide an "opportunity to stay in one place, in a
secure fashion." But it's doubtful that security concerns were the
main reason for leasing the ship. Putting the Republicans on an ocean
liner, after all, only makes for a bigger target. Besides, they'd
still have to navigate the streets of the city to get to Madison
Square Garden, where the actual convention will take place. And
Republican leaders, including the folks in the White House, knew what
they were getting into when they picked New York, a major terrorist
target.
The real fear is of protestors and the negative media coverage caused
by them, and for good reason: Hundreds of thousands of angry Bush
opponents could quite possibly hit the streets of Manhattan next
August 30 to September 2. With the dozens of events that usually
punctuate the Republican National Convention–events that would
normally take place in restaurants, nightclubs, bars, parks and
outdoor spaces all over the city–it will be impossible to control the
swarms of demonstrators and keep them out of the range of cameras. A
few thousand protestors can be cordoned off in fenced-in pen blocks
from the convention site–as the GOP convention planners, in cahoots
with local Republican authorities, did at their Houston convention
(1992), their San Diego convention (1996) and their Philadelphia
convention (2000), all of which I covered. But a hundred thousand
people--the size of the anti-war marches here last spring--or even a
quarter of that, is a mob too big to keep back in a relatively small,
compact place like Manhattan, particularly if various factions among
the demonstrators target the different Republican events.
At the San Diego convention, I remember when the anti-abortion crowd,
led by fanatical, right-wing organizer Phyllis Schlafly, held a "Whale
of the Party" day at Sea World. T-shirts and balloons that read "Life
of the Party" were handed out. Porpoises and whales frolicked amid the
blue-haired ladies carrying dead fetus posters. Yes, it was quite
lovely. Where do you suppose they'll have their bash here? The New
York Public Library? The Met? Union Square? And are New Yorkers, and
the untold numbers of others who might come into the city to protest,
going to let such events go on undisturbed? Not if I--or you,
hopefully--can help it. That's why the ship idea–the 2240-room
Norwegian Dawn, with 15 decks and 14 bars and lounges–was brilliant
for the Republicans, if they could have pulled it off. It would keep
the protestors far away from gatherings, and it would keep the most
extreme of the wingnuts locked up, like your crazy old aunt hidden in
the attic. It would also provide a space for the upscale
fundraisers–the kind filled with glittery, supremely tacky
Texans–undeterred by chanting masses or infiltrators who might stand
up and make a peaceful but embarrassing protest.
When the Republicans decided on New York last January--and when they
pushed the convention forward a week so that it would be closer to the
9/11 anniversary, which Bush could milk for photo-ops--there weren't
supposed to be any protestors in New York. In the neo-con hawks'
vision of the future, by next September even New Yorkers, who were as
supportive as most of the rest of the country about the war in
Afghanistan, would be thankful that we invaded Iraq, found weapons of
mass destruction and saved the world. We'd be eternally grateful for
Bush's supposed leadership in the days after 9/11, happy to anoint him
during that terrible day's anniversary right after his party's
convention, believing his insinuations of a connection between 9/11
and Saddam Hussein. Or, we wouldn't care whether or not there is such
a connection.
Things went a vastly different way. And like Bush's recent,
long-planned trip to London, a Republican convention that was planned
here a long time ago now seems pretty ill-considered. There's the
anger and resentment among New Yorkers over the administration's
stalling the 9/11 commission, which the White House resisted from the
beginning. There's the cutting of funds for reconstruction and to
fight terrorism on the domestic front. We've now found out that the
air quality after the attacks was pretty horrible, but that Bush's
Environmental Protection Agency didn't want to tell us perhaps for
fear we wouldn't go back to work. In the lead-up to the war came the
demonizing and diminishing of the U.N., which is as much a part of
this city as, well, September 11. And then came the war in Iraq
itself, which New Yorkers have opposed with more vigor than most of
the rest of the country in part because they have been fearful of the
ramifications in the form of terrorist attacks in years to come.
In the first days after 9/11, people were comforted by Bush's
appearances at Ground Zero, especially since he was promising to find
the terrorists who committed the mass murder and destruction,
including Osama bin Laden. But nowadays, Bush can't even say bin
Laden's name. The thought of his using 9/11 as the capper for his
convention is enraging to many. And a lot of people, including the
families of many victims, will no doubt be making their voices heard
during Bush's convention.
In light of all that, the ship idea made sense and was certainly a way
to do some damage control and diminish negative publicity. It wasn't
so different from the cancellation of the traditional carriage parade
through the streets of London during Bush's state visit to Buckingham
Palace, or his cancellation of a speech before Britain's Parliament
(where the tradition is for opposition party members to heckle a
speaker with whom they disagree). Both were chocked up to security
concerns. But you have to wonder if speaking before Britain's
Parliament is really more dangerous than flying into Baghdad on
Thanksgiving Day, something Bush did with a bunch of reporters at his
side.
So, the Republicans' ship may have gone down. But if Bush opponents
are smart, we'll smell that blood in the water and make sure there's a
feeding frenzy at next year's convention.
...
My Countrymen, My Enemy
by Vincent Fiore
Recently, a Western Washington University student by the name of Paul
Douglas Revak pleaded guilty to the charge of trying to obtain
explosives. Revak, a self-proclaimed anarchist, apparently grew
distressed over the Bush administration's handling of Iraq.
Frustrated, Revak decided to enact his own policy initiative.
Declaring war against the government, Revak plotted to bomb the U.S.
Coast Guard station in Bellingham, and allegedly discussed with
students the possibility of bombing other military installations such
as the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station and the Washington Air
National Guard. Shockingly, the arrest of a possible terrorist in our
midst received little to no attention from the media as a whole.
The FBI, evidently tipped off by students Revak tried to recruit by
handing out his "manifesto," arrested the 20 year old on June 9th of
this year. Upon searching Revak's dormitory in Mathes Hall, agents
came upon items decidedly out of place in a college dorm room: black
ski masks and gloves, face paint, camouflage hats, a walkie-talkie,
and bolt cutters. "I don't think Paul has a mean bone in his body. I
think he was expressing his frustration with how the administration
was dealing with the Iraq situation and got a little carried away." So
says the federal public defender for Revak, Thomas Hillier.
Plea bargaining the charge down to trying to obtain explosives,
Hillier procured for his client a sentence of anywhere from 6 months
to 10 years. Hillier hopes to have his client home for Christmas. If
Revak were convicted of the original charge of threatening to use
weapons of mass destruction, (now where have we heard that before...),
he could have been home for Christmas only in his dreams; for that
charge carries the sentence of life. Now, our young anarchist can
possibly look forward to finding some C-4 explosives or maybe a nice
semi-auto in his Christmas stocking. Happy holidays, one and all.
"Mr. Revak is only 20, with no prior offenses. Most of what he did was
just talk," says U.S. assistant attorney Andrew Hamilton. "We felt
that he was culpable, but we had to look at all the factors and what
would be the just result."
The "just result" that U.S. attorney Andrew Hamilton speaks of is
possibly weeks or months away. Not withstanding Paul Revak's initial
bungling attempts at domestic terrorism, the "just results" may yet
show itself in the most horrifying of ways. Paul Revak could be free
as early as December 5th of this year. This "culpable" American bred
anarchist may decidedly climb the next rung up the ladder of
criminality, and commit the terrorism he sought to inflict before
being caught: terrorism against his own country and countrymen. At
that point, 20-year-old meathead Paul Revak, who at first blush may
sound like he couldn't roll a rock down hill, has in fact become a
terrorist. But in his heart, he may already be one.
I do not mean to sound flippant or jocular regarding Paul Revak. It's
just when I hear about people like Paul Douglas Revak, I tend to react
with the basest of feelings. To me, and to most Americans, I will say,
the Paul Revaks that threaten the country need to remain behind bars
until they are much too old to contemplate the murder of innocents.
Nor do I care about rehabilitation, if indeed there is any in today's
penal system. What I care about is Revak being off the college
campuses where he cannot pollute the malleable young minds of the
future generation that will be fighting this war against terrorism one
day.
If this seems unreasonable to you, maybe even selfish on my part, I
unequivocally plead guilty. But I believe that I am not the odd man
out here. Nor are the tens of millions who cohabit society that obey
the laws and suppress their never too far away animalistic impulses.
Just like we are seeing in Iraq, it is the very small minority, the
Islamic terrorist, and the American domestic terrorist like Paul
Revak, who would seek to defy all through deadly force.
So what can a single Paul Revak do if not dealt with correctly now? He
can metastasize into the many, such as groups like the Earth
Liberation Front, or the ELF. Since 1996, ELF (which actually
originated in England) is responsible for some 650 incidents, and over
100 million dollars in damages. From burning down Hummer car
dealerships in West Covina, California, to their largest triumph of
devastation to date, 50 million dollars in damages to a 206-unit condo
project in San Diego. Rod Coronado, convicted felon and unofficial
spokesman for ELF, explains ELF's position this way: "I was in San
Diego and I very much support that action. The Earth Liberation Front
believes that there has been enough time for talk; now is the time for
action."
Now, Rod Coronado says he is not involved with the ELF, or any of
their recent domestic terrorist acts. But he certainly fits the mold,
as he was convicted in 1995 for setting fire to a mink farm at
Michigan State University and served 4 years in prison. He has been
out for some time now, just looking for those 20-year-old meatheads
like Paul Revak to beguile and tempt into his belief of domestic
terrorism. How people like Rod Coronado are allowed back into society
after advocating the most heinous forms of civil disobedience, I will
never understand. For Rod Coronado is in fact, a domestic terrorist.
On August 30th of 2004, the Republican convention kicks off,
highlighting President Bush on the last night to lead the GOP into the
November elections. Numerous leftist groups have filed permits to
demonstrate against the President on a host of issues -- groups like
Moveon.org and RNCnotwelcome.org and United for Peace and Justice.
The NYPD expects as many as 500,000 people to jam the already crowded
city streets, over 150 protest groups in all. People that call
themselves anarchist, environmentalist, and pacifists. William Etundi
Jr., founder of counterconvention.org says that next year's
confrontation between groups like his and the GOP convention "is going
to be a showdow." Here is where the right to peaceful protest turns
into the right of mob rage.
Nobody should ever equate a peaceful march, such as those led by Dr.
Martin Luther King, to the rampaging of these groups. For these groups
harbor within them the next Rod Coronados and Paul Revaks, for it is
groups like these that have spawned them.
What is frightening to Americans is the thought of another 9/11 and
the feelings that the horror of it evokes. But as a person who walks
the streets of New York on a daily basis, what unnerves me the most is
the feeling of not knowing. The question of "when" goes through my
mind every now and then, only to be beaten back with a will that does
not easily succumb to fear. Still, it is a constant struggle, and will
be so for some time. How uneasy should I feel with people like Paul
Revak and Rod Coronado on the loose in NY, as that's where I think
they will be come next year? Will they bomb or burn down Madison
Square Garden with myself and thousands of others in it? Isn't it
enough to have to deal with the fact that Islamic terrorists want to
kill my fellow Americans and me? The war rages on not just in
Afghanistan and Iraq, but in these United States as well. And the
enemy may be someone as American as apple pie, or so you thought.
Steve Krulick
>
> Awww.
>
> Won't they ever grow up
(rrrr-click)
> and get real?
(rrrr-click)
> The "Impeach Bush" crowd remains a bunch of self-discrediting losers.
(rrrr-click)
>
> I'd rather see the divisions among the Dims
(rrrr-click)
> turn into a brawl inside
> and outside their Party's convention. Now that would be entertaining,
> as opposed to this worthless-loser
(rrrr-click)
> Usual Suspect stuff.
>
> Or, why don't these jokers make their own party and have their own
> convention?
>
> These bozos are pathetic
(rrrr-click)
> and predictable:
(rrrr-click)....
Yes, Simpson just takes the words (list keeps growing):
fail, failure, failing, lose, loser, loserisms, liar, lies, grow
up, wrong, silly, stupid, ignorance, ignorant, dupe, naive,
childish, annoying, annoys, mentally-ill, behave, behavior,
pathological, playing, games, playground, pathetic, lower half
of the population, lefties, predictable, typical, betters,
quality, immature, diarrhea, real world, commies, vulgar, etc...
and mixes them up, throws them in the air, and what comes down
is his all-purpose Turing response!
See... I can do this too; this is all you have to know about
Simpleson:
"Childish loser and immature liar Simpson fails again,
predictably! He won't grow up, but maintains his wrong, silly,
stupid, annoying pathological behavior. He's an ignorant,
pathetic mentally-ill failure, whose lack of quality places him
in the lower half of the population, where he typically whines
about lefties and commies and annoys his betters by playing
games, misusing words, and revealing his naive ignorance about
the real world."
D'oh!
--
Steven Krulick / s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
Robin
"Steve Krulick" <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
news:3FDFBAF2...@krulick.com...
LOL, you got him nailed.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 12/2/2003