"News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era"
War Crimes * Economy Collapsing * Colbert
13 January 2007“I think this speech given last night by this president represents
the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country
since Vietnam, if it's carried out. I will resist it."
Senator Chuck Hagel
11 January 20071) U.S. forces take Iranian diplomats hostage
- - Recent US actions could trigger Iran conflict2) Newly Unveiled Iraq Proposal Draws Criticism
- - Isolated Bush Faces Rebellion over Iraq
- - Zbigniew Brzezinski Debates Escalation With Walter Meade
- - Bush Channels Nixon
- - Last Word: Jimmy Carter - Revisiting 'Apartheid'3) WorldReports.org ~ PAULSON ON THE RUN
- - Stephen Colbert, White House Correspondents' Dinner
- - O'Reilly, Colbert to trade appearances January 18”The fact is, the American effort in Iraq is essentially a colonial effort.
We're waging a colonial war. We live in the post-colonial era.
This war cannot be won because it is simply out of sync with historical times.”
-- Zbigniew Brzezinski
January 11, 2007Editor's Notes:
Bush is stirring things up with Iran, perhaps trying to provoke a reaction to send in the nukes. Meanwhile the Ameritrust-Leo Wanta story is growing in claims of the US Treasury Secretary is on the run; and the dollar could enter a new depression. This issue covers some in Congress beginning to awaken, and they are concerned by what Bush may do next, and recalling the Constitutional crimes when the executive branch lied about Vietnam and Cambodia, etc. Zbigniew Brzezinski was brilliant in a recent interview on PBS Newshour program regarding war-surge foolery. Never before in my history has the George Orwell quote been so evident; during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act!. Item three includes a powerful roast of George W. Bush and company by Stephen Colbert (at a White House Correspondents Dinner); also included is the Newsweek interview with Jimmy Carter on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Brought up in the Jewish faith, I, personally appreciate Jimmy Carter's intention to help the people and nation of Israel, as well as that of the Palestinians. Peace is win/win, while war is lose/lose. Ending the occupation is key in a pathway for dignity, security, and peace. Fear and oppression are only recipes for disaster. But the Bush war for currency and oil, and military-corporate profit for a pseudo economy in a pseudo democracy is a real threat to everyone. Check out this WorldReports' article: US Treasury Secretary on the run and other articles. This could have enormous ramification for the dollar's fall and interest rate rise. Either way, the War President is not our friend. If you get too frustrated with all this in item 3, I suggest watching Stephen Colbert's roast of G.W. and company with Truthiness; his courage and performance is inspirational."We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality,
tied in a single garment of destiny.
Whatever affects one directly,
effects all indirectly."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
1) U.S. forces take Iranian diplomats hostage
- - Recent US actions could trigger Iran conflict
U.S. forces take Iranian diplomats hostage
Published by Wayne Madsen Report - January 12, 2007
U.S. violates Vienna Convention status of Iranian liaison office in Irbil, Iraq.
U.S. forces take Iranian diplomats hostage.
In a major escalation of Middle East tensions, the Bush administration authorized two U.S. Special Forces operations against the Iranian liaison office in Irbil, Iraq and took six officials assigned to the diplomatic compound hostage. It was the first such attack on an Iranian diplomatic mission in the region since August 1998 when the Taliban entered the Iranian consulate in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan and executed ten Iranian diplomats and one journalist. Ironically, in their attacks on Iranian diplomatic missions, the Bush administration and Taliban have something in common -- both governments claimed the Iranians at the missions were members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Iran rejected the charges leveled by both regimes.
In a scene reminiscent of the Iranian seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, the U.S. confiscated documents from the Irbil office.
Computers were also seized. U.S. forces also took down the Iranian flag.
Truncated, for complete article, see: WayneMadsenReport.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =- - Recent US actions could trigger Iran conflict
Video: Recent US actions could signal Iran conflict,
despite White House denials;
GOPer's bill requires Congress OK on Iran
By David Edwards and Mike Sheehan
Published on RawStory.com - January 12, 2007
Despite its claims to the contrary, some see evidence that the White House is preparing for conflict with Iran.
US forces raided a facility that Iran claimed was being used for diplomatic purposes, alleging that Iranians were funneling weapons to the enemy.
Six Iranians were captured in the raid at the consulate, with one being released earlier today.
Several analysts consider parts of President Bush's latest speech as an obvious threat to Iran. One, John Pike of GlobalSecurity,
notes that U.S. actions could signal a conflict in the near future.
Truncated, for the complete article, see:www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Recent_US_actions_could_signal_0112.html
2) Newly Unveiled Iraq Proposal Draws Criticism
- - Isolated Bush Faces Rebellion over Iraq
- - Zbigniew Brzezinski Debates Escalation With Walter Meade
- - Bush Channels Nixon
- - Last Word: Jimmy Carter - Revisiting 'Apartheid'
Newly Unveiled Iraq Proposal Draws Criticism
Broadcast January 11, 2007 - PBS TV -- President Bush's proposal to add more troops to the ongoing effort in Iraq has been met with mixed reaction throughout Washington. NewsHour Correspondent Kwame Holman reports on the responses to the President's speech Wednesday and the new Iraq strategy.
After fielding reporters' questions, the president's team set out for Capitol Hill, anticipating a long day before various congressional committees.
But by then, the president's plan already was under heavy assault at the Capitol. First, from the floor of the House, Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich.
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D), Ohio: The president's new plan is a plan for more door-to-door fighting, more civil war, more civilian casualties, more troop deaths, more wasted money, more destabilization in the region, and more separation from the world community. Does anyone in this administration have any sense at all?
KWAME HOLMAN: Texas Democrat Al Green.
REP. AL GREEN (D), Texas: Mr. Speaker, we have freed them from a ruthless dictator. We have lost more than 3,000 lives. We have more than 20,000 wounded. We have helped them to construct a constitution, to reestablish their constabulary.
We've helped them to hold an election. And we're spending more than $177 million, not per year, not per month, not per week, but per day. It is time for them to stand up and defend themselves. Do not send 20,000 in; bring 20,000 troops home. It's time for them to stand up and defend themselves.
KWAME HOLMAN: Some Republicans, such as Florida's Ric Keller, joined in the skepticism.
REP. RIC KELLER (R), Florida: I believe the motives of President Bush and other prominent leaders, such as Senator John McCain, who are pushing for more troops, are pure and well-meaning. I believe they sincerely think this is the best way forward.
Three years ago, I would have agreed with them. However, at this late stage, interjecting more young American troops into the crossfire of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach. We're not going to solve an Iraqi political problem with an American military solution.
KWAME HOLMAN: Meanwhile, Majority Leader Harry Reid was up on the floor of the Senate.
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader: Last night, the president, in choosing escalation, ignored the will of the people, the advice of the Baker-Hamilton commission, and a significant number of top generals, two of whom are commanders in the field. In choosing to escalate the war, the president virtually stands alone.
KWAME HOLMAN: But Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley followed, arguing Reid and his colleagues needed to do more than just attack Mr. Bush's strategy.
SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R), Iowa: Anybody who criticizes what the president's proposing or anybody else is proposing or what's been done cannot just get away with criticizing. There's got to be another plan.
I want to hear plans from people who think that what the president's doing is wrong. What would they do?
KWAME HOLMAN: After his morning meeting at the White House, Arizona Republican John McCain, who long has advocated a dramatic increase in U.S. troops, reaffirmed his support for the president.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), Arizona: I would like to see more, but that's not the point here. The point is, do we have a strategy to clear and hold and build? I believe that we do.
Senators grill Secretary Rice
SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R), Ohio: I've gone along with the president on this, and I bought into his dream, and at this stage of the game, I don't think it's going to happen.
KWAME HOLMAN: Newfound skeptics of the administration's policy on Iraq this morning joined longstanding critics of the war, expressing a tone that was set immediately by the chairman, Joseph Biden.
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D), Delaware: For many months now, the American people have understood that our present policy is a failure.
KWAME HOLMAN: The Delaware Democrat turned his attention to the section of the president's plan aimed at limiting the support by Iran and Syria of paramilitary networks inside Iraq.
SEN. JOE BIDEN: Secretary Rice, do you believe the president has the constitutional authority to pursue, across the border into Iraq or Syria, the networks in those countries?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. Secretary of State: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I would not like to speculate on the president's constitutional authority or to try and say anything that certainly would abridge his constitutional authority, which is broad as commander-in-chief.
I do think that everyone will understand that the American people -- and I assume the Congress -- expects the president to do what is necessary to protect our forces.
SEN. JOE BIDEN: Madam Secretary, I just want to make it clear, speaking for myself, that if the president concluded he had to invade Iran or Iraq in pursuit of these -- or Syria, in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that. I just want to set that marker.
KWAME HOLMAN: Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska continued the line of questioning, and the combat-decorated Vietnam veteran made plain his displeasure with the secretary's answers.
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), Nebraska: When you were engaging Chairman Biden on this issue on the specific question of, "Will our troops go into Iran or Syria in pursuit, based on what the president said last night?" You cannot sit here today -- not because you're dishonest or you don't understand -- but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.
Some of us remember 1970, Madam Secretary, and that was Cambodia. And when our government lied to the American people and said, "We didn't cross the border going into Cambodia," in fact, we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.
So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous. As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out. I will resist it.
KWAME HOLMAN: Hagel then asked about the troop increase proposal.
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL: Putting 22,000 new troops, more troops in, is not an escalation?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, I think, Senator, escalation is not just a matter of how many numbers you put in. Escalation is also a question of, are you changing the strategic goal of what you're trying to do? Are you escalating...
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL: Would you call it a decrease, and billions of dollars more that you need for it?
KWAME HOLMAN: Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold became the first senator to suggest that the time had come for Congress to de-fund the Iraq war effort overall.
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), Wisconsin: Congress must use its main power, the power of the purse, to put an end to our involvement in this disastrous war. And I'm not talking here only about the surge or escalation. It is time to use the power of the purse to bring our troops out of Iraq.
For complete article, see:www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/reaction_01-11.html
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =- - Isolated Bush Faces Rebellion over Iraq
Published on January 12, 2007 by the Guardian / UK
Congress to reject plan
Public against extra troops
by Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = - - Zbigniew Brzezinski Debates Escalation With Walter Meade
NewsHour PBS News January 11 -
Brzezinksi and Mead
Middle East analysts Zbigniew Brzezinski and Walter Russell Mead reflect on the current situation in Iraq and possible consequences of changes in U.S. policy.
Plan to Increase Troop Numbers Comes Under Broad Scrutiny
The proposed influx of more than 20,000 American troops in Iraq will change the composition of the U.S.-led operation. Middle East experts Zbigniew Brzezinski and Walter Russell Mead survey the current situation and discuss the implications of increasing troop numbers.
JIM LEHRER: Comments, once again, from Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, now a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, author of a new book, "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower."
And Walter Russell Mead, senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, author of "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World."
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, Former National Security Adviser to President Carter: Well, I suppose, in some degrees, it is new, in the sense that he is escalating the military presence and therefore the military effort. And it is also somewhat new in the sense that he has now publicly admitted that we're not winning, which not long ago he was proclaiming to be the case.
So, in that sense, it's new. But it is a policy, in my view, that is suffering from two fatal flaws. It is essentially not a military strategy, but a military tactic, a marginal escalation which is not going to alter the problems that we confront, in terms of the military confrontation in Iraq.
And, secondly, there's not even an inkling of a political strategy, of an effort to create a political framework for dealing with the problems that we face. And increasingly, the problem that we face in Iraq is a political problem, that's not only inside Iraq...
JIM LEHRER: You mean internal political?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Inside Iraq, but also in the region. And we need a regional political strategy, and the president didn't say one word about it.
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: That's also the main goal of the Americans now. And the combination of more troops on the ground and more financial resources in Iraq, plus the thinly veiled threat, made stronger in some ways by the congressional opposition, to begin winding down the American presence if the Shia don't cooperate, that's, I think, the essence of the strategy the administration is pursuing. Will it work? Time will tell.
JIM LEHRER: Will it work?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, we met on this issue before several times.
JIM LEHRER: Sure.
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think one of the recent issues we debated on your program was whether the previous strategy...
JIM LEHRER: We've been talking about this since the war began.
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Yes, whether the previous strategy from Baghdad would work. Now we know that it didn't.
Are the benchmarks going to be met? I don't think anybody expects that they will be met. If they're not met, what do we do then?
One option is for the administration, in effect, to use the failure of the Iraqis to meet the benchmarks and, in effect, adopt a policy of blame and run, not cut and run, but blame and run.
JIM LEHRER: Blame the Iraqis, the Iraqis couldn't do it, so we go?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: We go. But we have, in the meantime, created this, in my judgment, exaggerated horror scenario of all the dominos falling in the Middle East if we leave. So how can the administration then leave, even if the benchmarks are not met, because all of these horrible things will happen if we leave?
So what's the other alternative? And this is what really worries me. There are hints in the president's speech and in Rice's testimony today about the possibility of escalation, not necessarily in the number of troops, but in the range of the military operations, namely perhaps against Syria or Iran.
And the incident with the Iranian consulate, the rhetoric about Iran, the increasing temptation to blame our failure on the Iranians and the Syrians could push us in that direction. And there are a lot of people still around here, particularly the neocons, who would like us to have a crack at Iran.
JIM LEHRER: Well, let me ask you, Walter Mead. If you take that, just to capsulize what Dr. Brzezinski is saying, and see if you share the fear that things turn really even much worse in Iraq, and the only way the United States can react, because things become so bad, is to take on militarily Iran.
Do you see that as a possibility? Do you smell the same hints that Dr. Brzezinski smelled today?
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: I certainly saw and heard in the president's speech -- and more than the speech, actions the government is taking -- that the U.S. does seem to be trying to tighten a noose around or at least step up the pressure.
Because let's not forget that we're substantially increasing our naval forces in the region. The diplomatic pressure is continuing. I understand an Iranian bank has just been sort of sanctioned by the U.S. The Europeans are working with the U.S. to go even beyond the latest U.N. sanctions.
And let's not forget the bombing raids in Somalia as an indication, an indication that the Americans have teeth.
JIM LEHRER: Yes, but that's kind of a fall guy scenario, is it not, Dr. Brzezinski?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Yes, but I think it reflects, on the one hand, desperation, on the other hand, a kind of fanatical commitment which I think is detached from reality.
JIM LEHRER: From the United States?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Of the United States and of presidential leadership. And don't forget that, even the existing policy, short of the widened war with Iran and Syria, does not have the support of the three still-living former presidents, and one who recently died, who went public on record as opposing the current policy.
It's opposed by more and more Republicans. It's opposed by public opinion in the United States. And yet these signals, these hints, and some of these actions raise the risk that, if the benchmarks are not met, instead of leaving, we'll widen the war, because we'll claim that the Syrians and the Iranians are causing us the difficulties.
And that means a total exclusion of any rational regional effort to get a political process going of the kind that the Baker-Hamilton commission spoke and which I think very rightly advocated.
JIM LEHRER: Walter Mead, what do you think of that?
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Well, I guess it -- you know, you can't rule out the possibilities that Dr. Brzezinski is raising. And certainly, I think there are some people in the administration and in think-tanks and all around Washington who look at it that way.
JIM LEHRER: Positive on al-Maliki at this point, possible at least...
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, I suspend judgment. I suspend judgment. But one has to say that, so far, the record has not been promising.
And I'm not sure that the remedy is for us to widen the scale of the conflict, as if we didn't have enough on our hands already. If we now begin to take on some of the Shiite militias -- for example, al-Sadr's militia has about 60,000 armed men -- I think we're going to be more busy than we are.
We're increasing our presence by 21,000 troops, and we're about to launch the battle of Baghdad. In some ways, it evokes memories of the Battle of Algiers. There's a great movie on the subject. But once we have cleared some streets and gone on to the next streets to clear, they'll be back, because there's five million of them or so living in Baghdad.
Now, if we add to that fighting an effort to disarm the militias -- and I assume it would be us who would be doing it -- the military task will become more difficult, and the benchmarks will not be met, not only by the Maliki government, they'll not be met by us.
Importance of public support?
JIM LEHRER: Walter Mead, finally, to pick up a point that Dr. Brzezinski made, evaluate from your perspective the importance of public support and congressional support in what's happening right now and what the president is proposing right now.
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Well, I think, in the short term, it may not be as crucial as it will be in the medium term. There's not much chance, I think, of funds being cut off now.
But we are moving into a new phase in this war, in the sense that, as the president lays out these benchmarks, even though they're not attached to timetables and so on, he's laying out benchmarks for American military success in Baghdad and pacification, as well as Iraqi governmental corporation.
So the situation is evolving and changing. And the president really has a lot at stake, not so much on the immediate political response to what he said last night, as what happens in Baghdad on the ground in the next three to six months. It's crucial.
JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, partially I agree, but the problem is not only military, not only political, it's also historical. There is such a thing as historical relevance.
The fact is, the American effort in Iraq is essentially a colonial effort. We're waging a colonial war. We live in the post-colonial era. This war cannot be won because it is simply out of sync with historical times.
JIM LEHRER: Dr. Brzezinski, Walter Mead, thank you both very much.
For complete article, see:www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/zbmead_01-11.htmlaudioRealAudioDownloadVideoStreaming
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =- - Bush Channels Nixon
by Robert Dreyfuss
Published by TomPaine.com
January 11, 2007
For article, see: www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/11/bush_channels_nixon.php
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = - - Last Word: Jimmy Carter - Revisiting 'Apartheid'
Dec. 25, 2006 - Jan. 1, 2007 issue -
The word apartheid—did you agonize about that?
Not really, I didn't agonize because I knew that's an accurate description of what's going on in Palestine. I would say that the plight of the Palestinians now—the confiscation of their land, that they're being suppressed completely against voicing their disapproval of what's happening, the building of the wall that intrudes deep within their territory, the complete separation of Israelis from the Palestinians—all of those things in many ways are worse than some of the aspects of apartheid in South Africa. There is no doubt about it, and no one can go there and visit the different cities in Palestine without agreeing with what I have said.
Why do you think you're under attack for the book and the title?
You and I both know the powerful influence of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], which is not designed to promote peace. I'm not criticizing them, they have a perfect right to lobby, but their purpose in life is to protect and defend the policies of the Israeli government and to make sure those policies are approved in the United States and in our Congress—and they're very effective at it. I have known a large number of Jewish organizations in this country [that] have expressed their approval for the book and are trying to promote peace. But their voices are divided and they're relatively reluctant to speak out publicly. And any member of Congress who's looking to be re-elected couldn't possibly say that they would take a balanced position between Israel and the Palestinians, or that they would insist on Israel withdrawing to international borders, or that they would dedicate themselves to protect human rights of Palestinians—it's very likely that they would not be re-elected.
In some of your interviews you've said that this is a debate that's out in the open in Israel, and it's only here that we feel inhibited.
Oh yes—that's correct. Not only in Israel—all over Israel, the major news media, every day—[but] obviously in the Arab world, even in Europe. In this country, any sort of debate back and forth, any sort of incisive editorial comment in the major newspapers, is almost completely absent.
For the complete article, see:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16240761/site/newsweek/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (Hardcover)
by Jimmy Carter
List Price: $27.00
Amazon.com Price: $14.85For FN’s archives, see:
Middle East Peace
initiatives and information
3) WorldReports.org ~ PAULSON ON THE RUN
- - Stephen Colbert, White House Correspondents' Dinner
- - O'Reilly, Colbert to trade appearances January 18
DISGRACED PAULSON ON THE RUN, AVOIDING REARREST
Friday 12 January 2007 02:57
PAULSON ON THE RUN, TRYING TO 'FIX IT',
WHILE AVOIDING REARREST
By Christopher Story FRSA, Editor and Publisher,
International Currency Review, World Reports Limited, London and New York: WorldReports.org
For the complete article, see:www.worldreports.org/news/40_disgraced_paulson_on
For more recent and past articles, see: www.worldreports.org/news
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =- - Stephen Colbert, White House Correspondents' Dinner
April 30, 2006 - Blistering Comedy with George W. Bush & Company
Stephen Colbert’s routine at Saturday’s White House Correspondents Dinner
Watch the video:www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/29.html#a8104
or read the transcript:www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811
"Wow. Wow, what an honor. The White House correspondents' dinner. To actually sit here, at the same table with my hero, George W. Bush, to be this close to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what? I'm a pretty sound sleeper -- that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in the face. Is he really not here tonight? Dammit. The one guy who could have helped."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
So, Mr. President, please, pay no attention to the people that say the glass is half full. 32% means the glass -- it's important to set up your jokes properly, sir. Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Look, by the way, I've got a theory about how to handle these retired generals causing all this trouble: don't let them retire! Come on, we've got a stop-loss program; let's use it on these guys. I've seen Zinni and that crowd on Wolf Blitzer. If you're strong enough to go on one of those pundit shows, you can stand on a bank of computers and order men into battle. Come on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
John McCain is here. John McCain, John McCain, what a maverick! Somebody find out what fork he used on his salad, because I guarantee you it wasn't a salad fork. This guy could have used a spoon! There's no predicting him. By the way, Senator McCain, it's so wonderful to see you coming back into the Republican fold. I have a summer house in South Carolina; look me up when you go to speak at Bob Jones University. So glad you've seen the light, sir.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Joe Wilson is here, Joe Wilson right down here in front, the most famous husband since Desi Arnaz. And of course he brought along his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Oh, my god. [looks horrified] Oh, what have I said? I -- Je- minetti (sp?). I am sorry, Mr. President, I meant to say he brought along his lovely wife Joe Wilson's wife. Patrick Fitzgerald is not here tonight? OK. Dodged a bullet.
And, of course, we can't forget the man of the hour, new press secretary, Tony Snow. Secret Service name, "Snow Job." Toughest job. What a hero. Took the second toughest job in government, next to, of course, the ambassador to Iraq.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stephen Colbert's Blistering Performance Mocking
Bush and the Press Goes Ignored by the Media, see:www.democracynow.org/arti...06/05/03/145234
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =- - O'Reilly, Colbert to trade appearances January 18
NEW YORK - It may feel like looking into the mirror for Bill O'Reilly and Stephen Colbert next week. The Fox News Channel host and Colbert, who has essentially based his comic character every evening on Comedy Central on him, will trade appearances on each other's programs Jan. 18.
On "The Colbert Report," Colbert portrays a self-involved talk-show host who has tried to bring "truthiness" to the world. His character owes an obvious debt to O'Reilly, who holds court in the "no-spin zone" each evening.
On "The O'Reilly Factor," O'Reilly portrays a ... um, he hosts the top-rated program in cable news.
"I look forward to the evening," Colbert said. "It is an honor to speak face-to-face with a broadcasting legend, and I feel the same way about Mr. O'Reilly."
For complete article, see:O'Reilly, Colbert to trade appearances
'The individual is handicapped coming face to face with
a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists'.
-- J. Edgar Hoover
Translate this Page!
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and not necessarily those of Flyby News.
A "Fair Use Policy" that describes FNs' use of copyrighted material is posted at FlybyNews.com.
Your feedback for story suggestions and networking Flyby News are welcomed and appreciated.
You can write to the publisher/editor Jonathan Mark via email: email@example.com
If you would like to receive more Flyby News alerts for the New England
region, send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org & insert "subscribe" in subject
Flyby News is educational and nonviolent in focus, and has supported critical campaigns
for a healthy environment, human rights, justice, peace, and nonviolence,
since the launching of NASA's Cassini space probe in 1997.=====News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era====> = = = = = = www.FlybyNews.com = = = = =