Tuesday, December 30, 2003

Ashcroft recuses himself from CIA leak probe

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself Tuesday from a Justice Department investigation into who may have revealed the name of a CIA operative to the media and a special prosecutor was named to head up the probe.


Good! Now lets Impeach him!!!!!

Sunday, December 28, 2003

Baker takes the loaf
Bush's business partner slices up Iraq

By Greg Palast

December 11, 2003—Well, ho ho ho! It's an early Christmas for James Baker III.

All year the elves at his law firm, Baker Botts of Texas, have been working day and night to prevent the families of the victims of the September 11 attack from seeking information from Saudi Arabia on the kingdom's funding of al Qaeda fronts.

It's tough work, but this week the payoff came when president [sic] [sic] Bush appointed Baker, the firm's senior partner, to "restructure" the debts of the nation of Iraq.

And who will net the big bucks under Jim Baker's plan? Answer: his client, Saudi Arabia, which claims $30.7 billion due from Iraq (plus $12 billion in "reparations" from the First Gulf war).

Puppet Strings

Let's ponder what's going on here.

We are talking about something called 'sovereign debt.' And unless George Bush has finally 'fessed up and named himself Pasha of Iraq, he is not their sovereign. Mr. Bush has no authority to seize control of that nation's assets nor its debts.

But our president [sic] isn't going to let something as meaningless as international law stand in the way of a quick buck for Mr. Baker. To get around the wee issue that Bush has no legal authority to mess with Iraq's debt, the White House has crafted a neat little subterfuge. The president [sic], says the official press release, has not appointed Baker, rather Mr. Bush is, "responding to a request from the Iraqi Governing Council." That is, Bush is acting on the authority of the puppet government he imposed on Iraqis at gunpoint.

(I will grant the Iraqi 'government' has some knowledge of international finance. It's key member, Ahmed Chalabi, is a convicted bank swindler.)

The Bush team must see the other advantage in having the rump rulers of Iraq pretend to choose Mr. Baker. The U.S. Senate will not have to review or confirm the appointment.

If you remember, Henry Kissinger ran away from the September 11 commission, with his consulting firm tucked between his legs, after the Senate demanded he reveal his client list. In the case of Jim Baker, who will be acting as a de facto U.S. Treasury secretary for international affairs, our elected Congress will have no chance to ask him who is paying his firm . . . nor even require him to get off conflicting payrolls.

For the Bush administration, this marks a new low in their Conflicts-R-Us appointments process.

Or maybe there's no conflict at all. That is, if you see Jim Baker's new job as working not to protect a new Iraqi democracy but to protect the old theocracy of Saudi Arabia.

Iraq owes something on the order of $120 billion to $150 billion, depending on who's counting. And who's counting is very important.

Much of the so-called debt to Saudi Arabia was given to Saddam Hussein to fight a proxy war for the Saudis against their hated foe, the Shi'ia of Iran. And as disclosed by a former Saudi diplomat, the kingdom's sheiks handed about $7 billion to Saddam under the table in the 1980's to build an "Islamic bomb."

Should Iraqis today and those not yet born have to be put in a debtor's prison to pay off the secret payouts to Saddam?

James Wolfensohn says 'No!' Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, has never been on my Christmas card list, but in this case, he's got it right: Iraq should simply cancel $120 billion in debt.

Normally, the World Bank is in charge of post-war debt restructuring. That's why the official name of the World Bank is, "International Bank for Reconstruction and Development." This is the Bank's expertise. Bush has rushed Baker in to pre-empt the debt write-off the World Bank would have certainly promoted.

"I Fixed Florida"

Why is our president [sic] so concerned with the wishes of Mr. Baker's clientele? What does Bush owe Baker? Let me count the ways, beginning with the 2000 election.

Just last week Baker said, "I fixed the election in Florida for George Bush." That was the substance of his remarks to an audience of Russian big wigs as reported to me by my somewhat astonished colleagues with BBC television.

It was Baker, as consiglieri to the Bush family, who came up with the strategy of maneuvering the 2000 Florida vote count into a Supreme Court packed with politicos.

Baker's claim to have fixed the election was not a confession. It was a boast. He meant to dazzle current and potential clients in the former Soviet states about his big In with the Big Boy in the White House. Baker's firm is already a top player in the Great Game of seizing Caspian Sea oil. (An executive of Exxon-Mobil, one of Baker Botts's clients, has been charged with evading taxes on bribes paid in Kazakhstan.)

All in the Family

Over the years, Jim Baker has taken responsibility for putting bread on the Bush family table. As senior counsel to Carlyle, the arms-dealing investment group, Baker arranged for the firm to hire both President] Bush 41 after he was booted from the White House and President [sic] Bush 43 while his daddy was still in office.

Come to think of it, maybe I'm being a bit too dismissive of the Iraqi make-believe government. After all, it's not as if George Bush were elected by the voters either. It would be more accurate to say that two puppet governments have agreed on letting the man who has always pulled the strings come out from behind the curtain, take a bow, take charge, take the money and run.

look I can't let this go... I will never get over it. This is from the BBC

Gore 'was cheated'

The BBC's Malcolm Brabant says that anger is bound to resurface at the Civil Rights Commission hearings, which began on Thursday.

The commission is trying to determine whether black voters in Florida were discriminated against.

The first main witness is the state's governor, Jeb Bush, the brother of the president-elect.

Many blacks believe that he fixed the election.

Mr Bush insists he has nothing to hide and has joked that the only crime he is guilty of is being the president-elect's brother.

Mr Bush does not believe the Commission will uncover any evidence of a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise black voters, 93% of whom voted for Al Gore.

Scared off

- But the Commission is looking at:

- why black precincts were given some of the oldest and most unreliable voting machines

- why 27,000 black votes were disqualified in Duval County in north-eastern Florida
whether the Florida Highway Patrol scared some people into not voting by setting up checkpoints near polling stations.

The Highway Patrol says it is insulted by the accusations and insists its operation was a routine effort to crack down on traffic violations.

The Democratic-leaning Commission is the most powerful Federal organisation that deals with racial discrimination, but it does not have any powers of enforcement.

It can only recommend changes to the President and Congress.

Black leaders have urged Mr Bush to prove that he is a President for all Americans by listening to their complaints and ensuring that there is no repeat of the Florida fiasco.

Saturday, December 27, 2003

Bush to military: 'Proud of you'

Bush in his Christmas message to GIs: "By spreading freedom and democracy, you are making our future more secure."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush praised U.S. troops in a Christmas message, telling them "our whole country is proud of you" and "I am proud of every one of you."


"We are proud of you"... Re-elect Bush 2004

Mark my words.

Caleb Hayes

Friday, December 26, 2003

Bush: "a goof"... On his part of corse.


Webster.com: "Goof: a silly or stupid person"

That says it all.

Caleb PS Oh yeah... Was Joe Wilson a "goof" too?

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Can I trust anything my government tells me?

We all know that they lied about Jessica Lynch. I have to admit that I gave them the benefit of the doubt on Saddam's capture. I believed it. "Yeah, they got Saddam". Now I am doubting that, thanks to this news story.

Al Jazeerah reports "The yellowish dates in the picture behind two American soldiers show that Saddam was not present there at this time of the year, Okaz Arabic daily reported. The picture shows that the capture of Saddam would have taken place two months ago, the paper said.

This just makes me wonder, "What else have they lied to me about?" I want to believe my government but with the Jessica Lynch story lies and now this popping up, what can I believe? Obviously they are not afraid of lying. They lied to constantly about going to war. I want my country back!! You can help by giving to the DNC


Thursday, December 18, 2003

Rumsfield wins "Foot in Mouth" award


Sometimes you know that you know, but you don't really know... and there are uknown things that you don't know that could be known by other people that could not know yet you know that you don't really know yet you assume that you know when you know that something could very well be what you think that you know it is.


This is the sort of twisted logic Rumsfield showed at a press briefing. He outdid the president himself, and even AH-Nold.

What I find depressing is when I look at our history and take notice of all the great minds we've had. People that said meaningful things backed up with actual "reasons" and not repetitive lies. Remembering great minds and thinkers like Patrick Henry, who we still remember today for the famous "Give me liberty, or give me DEATH" quote. http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/henry.html

Benjamin Franklin also once said "Those who would sacrifice precious liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." And, yet, today, the powers-to-be who say such jibberish as Rumsfield said above, and our president who gives us "Bushisms" are taking away our precious liberties at every turn! And what is their excuse? What was their reason for the infamous "Patriot Act?" To protect the homeland, right? To make us believe we are being kept safe and secure, yet it's all false.... you'll never be completely secure, so there's no reason to be taking away our precious freedoms which so many men and woman have lost their lives to protect in the span of our American History.

So, compare now to then... sure, we advanced far more technologically than our founding fathers. But, I think I can be so presumptuous as to proclaim that society itself has become THAT MUCH MORE IGNORANT and susceptible to deceit! How else would we have come up with a statement such as "Freedom Fries?"

200 years ago: "Give me Liberty, or give me DEATH." Fastforward to the present: "Freedom Fries."

Need I say more?


Tuesday, December 16, 2003


(CNN) -- An attorney for the family of former U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina on Monday confirmed that at the age of 22, Thurmond fathered a child with a teenaged African-American housekeeper in 1925.


LOL! Just think... In 30 years we will be hearing... "Trent Lott had sex with a man". I can't wait for that day. Which brings up a bigger question to me. Why do conservatives hate the gay population? Why? I don't understand what scares them. If you are a conservative please e-mail at "caleb@anti-bush.com" and tell me what you don't like about gay people. Tell me why they can't marry or at least have civil unions. I think we have a bigoted congress right now and 30 years from now we will look back and wonder why we were so bigoted.

Monday, December 15, 2003

Saddam Hussein's Capture

Sure, it's a good thing... but what has changed?

Nothing, it's just a distraction really... something else for them to use and distract us from the truth.

But, in all honesty, I don't care WHO they've capture... what I still want to know is this: Where are the weapons? Where are they hiding the 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, and the 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents? All of these things are listed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html. The site is titled "Disarm Saddam Hussein." So, where are they? Huh? Well, anyone? The fact is... you can't hide this stuff without someone coming along and finding them! I haven't seen a single shred of evidence of anything.

Eric Blumrich said it best:

Yes, Hussein has been captured- whoop-de-doo.

American and coalition soldiers will continue to die on a daily basis.

Iraqi civilians will continue to die on a daily basis, but now, they will die at the hands of coalition troops, rather than those of Hussein's secret police.

We were still lied to, in regards to the causes for this war.

The occupation is continuing to cost the US taxpayers 1500 dollars, per second.

Bush is still responsible for 3.3 million jobs lost.

There are still 42 million americans without any health insurance

Bush is still an illegitimate, unelected stooge of corporate america.

So, in the end, I don't see how this really changes much...

Sunday, December 14, 2003

Saddam captured in raid

Would you look at that. I got up this morning to my dad saying "Hey son, how are you. I just thought that I would be the one to break it to you... We captured Saddam."

So I noticed that some of the presidential candidates tried to use this as an opportunity to make some political gains. I will not be supporting Joe Lieberman or John Kerry at all. I cannot believe that they tried to gain on Dean with this. Did they really think it would help? It did not work for Gray Davis (regarding Arnold's sexual assault allegations). Maybe they should just sit back and watch like Davis should have done. If you were giving away money to one of two people and on of the them said the the other was a "bad person"... Would you believe him? I mean, it can't work. That person is just looking for the money. How could you trust them? It's the same thing. Joe Lieberman and John Kerry are just looking to become president.

Dean, Edwards, Kuchinich and Clark seemed to make the right statement. They all called for the United States to hand the Iraq situation over to the United Nations. That was the way to make a good situation out of a possible catastrophe for anti-war candidates Clark, Kuchinich and Dean. This was a real test for these candidates and Clark, Dean, Kuchinich and Edwards seemed to have hit a home run.

I think that this is a good day for Iraq. We have such a great military that it is a surprise to me that is took this long. I think they are such great people that we should bring them home! I also think that this is an opportunity to turn this over to the UN. The Iraq war is a disgusting fraud. And we need to bring our men and women home NOW! Hand it over to the UN and bring our kids home NOW!

Friday, December 12, 2003

Thursday, December 11, 2003

Hey Everyone,

First of all, I gotta tell you that I'm not going to be Bush-bashing quite to the same extent as many radical leftists. We have to give him some points, and criticize him only on valid grounds in order to retain our accountability, trustworthiness, and dignity, and to fulfill our responsibility (as Americans, if nothing else) to come to valid conclusions based on fact rather than spreading hate and negativity, which will only have adverse effects.

That said, Bush is a naive, inexperienced commander in chief who has made a string of bad decisions and it is in the country's - and the world's - best interest to remove him from office and allow a more experienced and promising candidate (I throw my every ounce of support to General Wesley K. Clark) to restore the United States of America to its former glory; to a nation the world can look to with hope and appreciation, and a nation to which we, its citizens, can look at with hope and pride.

Anyway, on this latest post by Eric... you have an excellent point. Diplomacy has a time and a place, and it is important not to alienate the rest of the world without good reason. However: the countries who threw no support to Iraq really should not be allowed investments in Iraq. If they were not prepared to support a cause in the first place, it is not justifiable for them to later reap any benefits from the same cause. Put it this way: they didn't want anything to do with Iraq then; if they want anything to do with Iraq now, then they are in the wrong to expect cooperation from us.

However, this is an iffy subject. We don't know whether or not Bush decided for those reasons to bar the said countries from such investments. Maybe it was just because he's an arrogant prick. =P But we don't know, so let's try to avoid taking advantage of the man on this one poor point when there are plenty of other, more solid reasons to criticize our prez (lol).

There is also the issue of "hey, justifiable doesn't matter to the countries who have nukes pointed at us." Consider the likeliness of that, though. If they hate us that much, we'd be in war with all of them right now. Plus, no single nuke campaign is likely to take out all of the United States at once - and unless another country is sure they can kill us all like *snap* that, they're not gonna try. Like it or not, the United States of America is the world's sole active superpower (I say active in contrast to China being something of a quiet superpower), and we will be, with new leadership, the best hopes for this world's positive continuity - and reasonable countries see that. We have a word for unreasonable people who don't see that: terrorists.

Okay, hope this all makes sense to ya (I'm pretty tired right now). Just wanted to say hi and let ya know where I'm coming from.


My master plan for fund raising in 2004

Bush is simply going to have tons of cash in 2004. With the fact that he pays his donors off and that he has no opponent in the primary we know he will have more cash than any presidential candidate ever. I guess we are doomed... Or not.

The fact is that people don't like bush. Sure large companies, with lots of money, such as Halliburton do, but people don't. That's why the music world and Hollywood elite seem to be doing these big "Hate Bush" party's all the time. So lets capitalize on that. "The not Bush 2004 tour" with Pearl Jam, Madonna, Rage against the Machine, Eminem, NOFX, Beastie Boys, Outkast, Blink 182, Public Enemy and our headlining act... The Dixie Chicks! Wow now lets count our cash. I have seen Blink 182 myself and it cost me $20 bucks. So... Pearl Jam $50... Madonna $100... RATM $40... Eminem $50... NOFX $30... Beastie Boys $40... Outkast $40... Blink 182 $20... Public Enemy $20... Dixie Chicks $100. Hmmm let me whip out my calculator... That would be... About $500... Times 30,000 screaming fans...$15,000,000... Times 30 cities... $450,000,000. So guess what... Take that Halliburton and Phillip Morris. $450,000,000

Well, the pentagon decided to bar companies from Germany, Canada, Russia and France from bidding on the $18.6 billion dollar reconstruction in Iraq. The reasoning is that these countries "didn't support the war!" Oh, jeez, yeah, let's bring back the "freedom fries" while we're at it.

Am I wrong in thinking that we should instead start working for better relations with the other major countries of the world? Why can't "America" set the example, and allow everyone to participate? I don't know about you, but i'm absolutely terrified of nuclear war. I don't like the fact that we are probably about to piss off the other nuclear powers of the world. This is why if President Bush gets relected I plan to get the hell out of dodge... i'll be going to a university up in Canada.

This is something that is going to come back and bite us in the ass later on. I was listening to the news, and the reporter said "Did they REALLY think we were going to allow them a piece of the pie?" Some variation of that. Well did *we* really expect the entire world to just do whatever-the-hell we said? Did we expect that they would be just as greedy as our leaders, and their people as ignorant as ours? Hell no! They knew the war in Iraq was just an American Imperialistic selfish endeavour - and they would have nothing of it. These new decisions from our leaders only aid in proving this assumption.

Tuesday, December 09, 2003

McCain: Congress spending money 'like a drunken sailor'
Sunday, November 30, 2003 Posted: 12:03 PM EST (1703 GMT)

McCain said, "Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading Republican Sen. John McCain Sunday berated fellow lawmakers for "spending money like a drunken sailor" and said President Bush was also to blame for pushing the nation toward higher interest rates and inflation.


This is fun! "Why don't we spend, spend, spend and spend and make our kids pay the check." I love this! Bush makes it look like everything is great. The economy booming, getting' all the bad guys in the world, and stopping the baby-killers. But I will have to pay for it! All this reckless spending & bouncing of checks I will have to pay for... Or the Bush plan. "Debt don't matter. I don't see creditors at my door." How long can we spend like this? When are we going to pay for our war and military, (which we pay too much for now.) We need to take some cash out of the military and put it into relations around the world. We wouldn't need such a big military. We could have buddies around the world instead!

Sometimes people e-mail me and ask how I would do this, (get us out of debt). It's simple. I would take every program and tell the American public, "We can pay for Medicare or get rid of it". There will be not programs that we don't pay for. Americans would feel a war in their pocket books because in order to do we would need to approve a tax hike. It is so simple! A program - a tax. Ha!

Com' on here. Don't make me pay for your "Bush party years".

Caleb Hayes
13 year old founder, www.anti-bush.com

Monday, December 08, 2003

Hey guys, i'm new to the blog. My name is Eric, and i'm here to stay. :)

Quick introduction for myself, to let you guys know a little bit about who I am. I'm from Houston Texas, and i'm 16 years old. I've always had this little itch to attempt to make the world a better place to live, real humanitarian like... i've got these dreams, even, of America becoming a "Humanitarian Leader" of the world rather than a "Military Power." This is, in my opinion, possible and highly probable, yet ultimately impossible as long as people like George Bush are in power up top. This is why the people of this country should form together and attempt to make sure no more power hungry, war mongering, self-serving (and extremely idiotic) individuals such as Bush become president of the United States ever again. It is with this mindset that I came into contact with Caleb Hayes shortly after viewing his site, cluttered as it is, the Bush Resume was what caught my attention, and the fact that he was only 13 and had just as much, if not more, interest in the state of our country, heck, the world, as myself.

I plan to offer my views on as many situations as possible, but I do not and will not ever know or have an opinion on everything. I'm stil in school, which means a significant amount of my time has to be spent on THAT. So please, if i'm ever ignorant on anything, forgive me, and never hesitate to prove me wrong... drop me an email whenever, I check it often.

I've also got my own website, linked to on anti-bush.com, called Altruistic Times which you can find at http://gadget.cpc-net.org/.

Sources: Gore to endorse Dean

Well, I guess its going to be Dean VS. Bush 2004

Hmmm... I never really got the "Dean fever". I saw him in the debates and forced myself to look at him like a "President". I made myself think "President, President, this guy is the President.". Because I knew this day would come. I really think we need to get Wesley Clark to destroy Bush in 2004. But I don't always get my way. In my book this will push Dean over the edge in Iowa to beat Gephart. He already won NH and that momentum will help him carry at least half of the states on February 3rd (Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina). The kicker would be South Carolina (Edwards is winning there right now but Clark and Dean are right on his tail.). If Dean wins South Carolina it is over... Hands down it is Dean v. Bush. As long as we keep him off the boat (hehe). So once again the two states to watch out for are Iowa and South Carolina.

Tuesday, December 02, 2003

I was just looking as some quotes. You would think that you learn to talk at Yale?

GEORGE W. BUSH: The tactics to respond to, uh, more suiciders (Is that a word???) driving cars will alter on the ground. More checkpoints, whatever they decide, how to harden targets will change. Uh, and so we're constantly looking at the enemy and adjusting and Iraq's dangerous and it's dangerous because terrorists want us to leave and we're not leaving.

"That's a chapter, the last chapter of the 20th, 20th, the 21st century that most of us would rather forget. The last chapter of the 20th century. This is the first chapter of the 21st century."
-Bush, On the Lewinsky scandal, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
-Bush, Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California."
-Bush, Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
-Bush, Reuters, May 5, 2000

"Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning"
-Bush, Florence, SC, Jan. 11, 2000

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—D.H. Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?