It was depicted in each case by the mainstream media as a simple conclusion, one to be reached without any investigation.

In that first instance that November 22, 1963 day as the report was delivered revealing that President John F. Kennedy had been shot in Dallas and was rushed to nearby Parkland Medical Center the first disclosure was issued immediately concerning his alleged assassin.

How amazing it was, or was it, to learn how much the mainstream media already knew about that "left loonie" loner, that slender, widely traveled ex-Marine married to the Russian woman he met while stationed in the Soviet Union.  

Not only had Lee Harvey Oswald shot the president from his Texas Schoolbook Depository vantage point; shortly after that he killed a Dallas policeman, J.D. Tippit, who found his activities suspicious and wanted to talk to him.

Mr. Hannity: "The Bush administration's assessment of the challenges we face from terrorists, and their state sponsors, is serious, thoughtful, and realistic. The antiwar activists of the Democratic left, on the other hand, have expressed a vision that is naïve at best, dangerously out of touch at worst." (p. 177)

My response: Serious and thoughtful the president's picture may be, but to call it realistic is utterly absurd. President Bush claims that terrorists are consumed with unconditional hatred for America and everything good it stands for, and that thus we have no choice but to wipe them off the face of the earth. In the president's mind, Islamic terrorists are portrayed as sub-human agents of the devil, and given up for hopeless because we cannot do anything to change their evil plans. This is not just unrealistic, it is defeatist.

Mr. Hannity: "The totalitarian regimes that support them [terrorists] are more difficult to trace, using every devious means available to hide their role in funding and training the terrorists." (p. 5)

Mr. Hannity: The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were "...unmistakable act[s] of war and crime[s] against humanity." (p. 1)

My response: Yes, the attacks of September 11, 2001 were terrible crimes against humanity which killed thousands of innocent people. They were unequivocally condemned as such by all the nations of the world.

Dennis Kucinich made one of the most potentially significant comments on the current political scene in some time last week.  Citing the prospect of a possible preventive war against Iran by the Cheney-Bush neocon con Administration, Kucinich concluded that perhaps the only way to prevent such a conflict, which would contravene international law and the U.S. Constitution, would be an impeachment action.  

Kucinich further stated that he might be willing to introduce such articles of impeachment in the House.  This is significant news by any yardstick since a prominent congressman and announced candidate for president in 2008 has actually mentioned the word impeachment in direct contravention to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's previous comment about impeachment being "off the table."

How much did you read or hear about this important statement from Kucinich in the mainstream media?  Kucinich, it should be noted, did appear in the latest edition of Time.  That leading mainstream journal did not mention Kucinich in any significant context, however, instead concerning itself with trivial pursuit.  

A mention was made in the letters section that Kucinich stood at 5-7, hardly a noteworthy topic.  At that height he towered above Napoleon and Fiorello LaGuardia, as if any of this really mattered.

In light of the recent media circus surrounding the execution of Saddam Hussein, I think America needs the following reminder. Please spread this message as far and wide as you can.

Just think of what we read in high school civics books.  We were told that good citizenship was inextricably tied to voting.  This was our contribution toward making our voices heard.

When Dwight D. Eisenhower, the forgotten Republican president, was seeking reelection in 1956 he delivered a brief announcement to the nation shortly before Election Day urging all Americans to exercise their right to vote.  He urged every eligible American citizen to vote, even if that meant voting against him.

We have come a long way.  Sean Hannity, who drips with syrupy self-proclamations on patriotism, has a different view.  Voters should only turn out if they favor the candidates he and his "fair and balanced" Fox News colleagues such as Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto sanction, meaning Republicans slavishly supporting the Cheney-Bush agenda.

Recently Hannity encouraged Democratic voters to "stay home on Election Day," adding that, "your vote doesn't matter anyway."  His rationale was that Democrats should stay away from the polls "for the sake of the nation" since their votes "won't change who occupies the White House" and Democratic "candidates have absolutely no idea how to win the war on terrorism."

Mehlman being arrested outside his Washington, DC home
Washington, DC (APE) - FBI agents early today surrounded the Washington, DC suburban home of Republican National Party chairman Ken Mehlman and took him into custody without incident. FBI sources stated that Mehlman will be charged with airing a composite video of Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants threatening America. The video suddenly appeared on multiple television stations throughout the United States earlier this week, and the FBI immediately suspected a hoax after last week's Internet dirty bomb threat.

"They just began following the paper and money trail," stated US Attorney Christopher J. Christie. "It was astounding, the millions of dollars that were poured in to finance the perpetration of this hoax. It was an arrogant and stupid thing to do."

In case you missed my 14,000 word analysis yesterday, "How Bush Created a Nuclear North Korea", here's a special component of which everyone should be acutely aware as we head into the November elections -- heads spinning from the laughably FALSE claims that Republicans are even remotely more capable of protecting America than Democrats.

Indeed, Bush, through his continued embrace with nuclear dictator Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, has done more to compromise US National Security than practically any other entity on Earth.

When Bush & Co. allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora, Osama scurried off to the Pakistani tribal lands -- a place he knew would be safe since Musharraf refused to enter, or allow others (i.e. the U.S.) to enter those tribal areas. Harboring public enemy #1 should be reason enough for the U.S. to blacklist Pakistan, but not for George "Dead or Alive" Bush. Months later, Bush, in an egregious act of appeasement, was allegedly able to 'cut a deal' with the dictator that allowed U.S. forces in those areas (more on that below the fold).

It's taken nearly five years, but by employing all that hard work you've talked about, you've reached a very significant milestone: you're now responsible for the deaths of more Americans than Osama Bin Laden.

The world's news sources held the planet's populace enthralled with recent London.   Tony Blair's emissaries were quick to praise the swift vigilance of authorities that were able, according to current reports, thwart what was being billed as a second 9/11.

As more information is revealed from London a name of a familiar organization resurfaces, this time as an important source of informational supply.  It is none other than ISI, shorthand for Inter Services Intelligence - Pakistan's intelligence organization.  

Britain's apparent reliance on and reference to ISI prompts those skeptical of the unproven theory behind the execution of 9/11 to take immediate note.  I am referring to those skeptics who dare question the same authorities that sent America to war on falsified information and practice preventive detention with impunity.

These authorities in Washington and London beseech us to accept in fine-tuned lockstep the theory offered by the establishment-ordained official 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media.  It is all very simple, just like Lee Harvey Oswald being a frustrated loner and deciding to kill President Kennedy all by himself.

Remember this time two years ago?  Howard Dean was running for president, Bush was defending the loss of liberties spelled out in the Patriot Act, and Iraq sucked.  Times have really changed...well, except for Bush.  And Iraq.

But two years ago, Howard Dean was taking grief over this statement:

"I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

What did the NRO's Andrew McCarthy have to say about Dean's statement?

Howard Dean's mistletoe buss for Osama bin Laden would, in sane times, disqualify him from serious contention for a major party's presidential nomination. If what he says is what he thinks, he is unfit. Case closed.

And about Bin Laden?

Americans (other than, evidently, Dr. Dean) know and expect that his fate, should he emerge from the catacombs, is death, either in battle or by execution at the conclusion of the most summary of military tribunals -- the just dessert of unlawful combatants who commit crimes against humanity.

But this little jaunt into history doesn't stop with 2003.  Come along and see what twists await us sixty years in the past...

Impeachable Offense!  We keep hearing it and finally the words are being said publicly on Capitol Hill. And not just by Democrats.

This time he has hit the Senate and Congress below the belt. He contemptuously ignored the outlets they gave him (FISA courts). His actions spoke loudly that he no longer considered the Legislative Branch an independent entity. Maybe that will wake even the Republicans up the precarious state of our Republic.

Will impeachment actually happen? Bush and gang have made our previous `Teflon' President (Reagan) look like a man in quicksand in comparison. The lies and diversions and manipulations practiced by this administration have been breathtaking in scope.